The summary below is that taken from the judgment:

The Claimant was a financial assistant, who worked from home because of a mobility-related disability. She was dismissed for redundancy. The ET upheld her complaint of unfair dismissal for lack of consultation but dismissed claims of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. It further concluded that she would have been dismissed in any event, affecting whether she suffered any compensable loss.

Allowing the appeal, the EAT held that the ET had erred in dismissing the section 15 claim. The ET found that the burden of proof shifted to the Respondent but accepted its contention that the Claimant had been dismissed because it believed she was incapable of performing an alternative role. On the ET's findings, that belief only arose after the dismissal decision had already been taken as the alternative role only became vacant during the notice period. The ET therefore relied upon a factor which could not logically have been an operative cause of the dismissal when finding that the Respondent had discharged the burden of proof. It reached a conclusion inconsistent with its findings of fact. The EAT substituted a finding that the section 15 claim succeeded.

The EAT also allowed the appeal against the ET's Polkey findings. Although the Respondent had pleaded Polkey, the issue was neither included in the agreed list of issues nor raised for determination at the liability hearing. The parties were not given an opportunity to address it in circumstances when evidence and submissions could have affected what was essentially a 100% Polkey reduction. The ET's determination of the issue therefore breached principles of natural justice. The question of Polkey was remitted to the same ET at the quantum hearing.