The Claimant, who had been employed by the Respondent for more than four years, claimed that he had worked for two months but not been paid. He brought proceedings in the ET for unauthorised deductions of wages, and consequential financial losses, and for failure to provide him with a written statement of particulars of his employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("section 1 statement"). On the day before the hearing, the Respondent applied for a postponement three times, on account of its sole witness being unable to attend, but the ET proceeded with the hearing and found in the Claimant's favour on all counts. The Respondent (which, in the meantime, had gone into liquidation and did not attend the EAT hearing) appealed on the grounds that (1) the ET erred in not granting the postponement, (2) the ET considered new documents produced by the Claimant at the hearing, and (3) the ET was wrong to find that the Claimant had not been given a section 1 statement.

The EAT held that (1) the ET made an entirely permissible decision to proceed in the Respondent's absence, taking the view that delay would not be in the interests of justice, (2) the Respondent was not prejudiced by the ET's consideration of the documents produced by the Claimant at the hearing, and (3) the Respondent was given the opportunity to demonstrate that this was incorrect by providing the EAT with a copy of that statement, but it did not do so.