This appeal concerned the decision of the ET dismissing a claim of age discrimination in relation to the provision by the Respondent of a scheme which entitled certain leavers to the benefit of a car loan agreement plan. The ET had been critical of the way in which the Respondent had sought, in the pleadings, to explain its justification claim, discrimination having been conceded only at the outset of the hearing. The Claimant did not submit an appeal to the EAT in respect of the decision, instead submitting an application to the Employment Judge who had chaired the ET for reconsideration. The Employment Judge rejected this, and the Claimant appealed that decision. This route limited the scope of the disposal open to the EAT, as opposed to a “normal” appeal. It was also important to limit its findings bearing in mind that the ET would have to reconsider the case.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The EAT was satisfied that the Employment Judge had erred in finding, at the reconsideration application stage, first, that the points raised in the letter seeking reconsideration "amounted to a rearguing of the case" and, second, that the Claimant had had the opportunity to give evidence and make the arguments which he wished to on the point. The EAT substituted for the Employment Judge’s refusal a direction that the reconsideration should take in accordance with the relevant rules.