The claimant, an emergency ambulance crew member, claimed unlawful deductions arising from whether he was due “disruption payments” for shifts worked over Christmas 2021. He had initially asked for the shifts to be recorded as overtime, then requested they be changed to core shifts, after which payment was suspended as the respondent believed the payments only related to overtime. The ET agreed with that analysis. This appeal was permitted to proceed only on grounds that raised a different argument which was that the respondent had breached its policies on changing shifts.

HHJ James Tayler dismissed the appeal. The EAT generally will not consider an argument not made at the original hearing. The claimant had chosen to run only the argument that the payments related to core shifts and allowing the new argument could require fresh evidence and a further tribunal hearing. Tayler also warned that parties, including litigants in person using generative AI or pro bono representatives, remain responsible for ensuring grounds raise only points argued below. A preparation time order application was also refused.