The Claimant was a Barrister and worked part-time as a Recorder. His application for extension of office so that he could continue to sit beyond his statutory retirement age of 70 was refused by the Respondent, while a Circuit Judge, accepted as being a relevant full-time comparator, was permitted to work on as a part-time judicial resource. Having found that the Claimant was treated less favourably than his full-time comparator without justification, the question of compensation was determined at a separate remedy hearing. The Respondent appealed the Decisions on both liability and remedy.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. On liability, the Tribunal's Judgment was not illustrative of any error of law or procedural irregularity such as would justify interference with it. The Tribunal's Remedy Judgment was also not susceptible to challenge. Separation of oral conclusions and a Written Judgment was permissible in the circumstances that arose, which had required parties to carry out an arithmetical calculation. The compensation awarded was justified by the available material and the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to the assessment of loss.