The Claimant, who was disabled by virtue of long-standing mental ill-health, worked for the Respondent until she was dismissed. She brought various claims in the ET and, following numerous hearings and appeals, the Court of Appeal upheld claims that she had been subjected to harassment related to her disability, and that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments, specifically by failing to re-deploy the Claimant to a role that was suitable and that she would have been capable of carrying out. In advance of the ET's remedy hearing, the Claimant argued that, if the Respondent had re-deployed her to a suitable role, her health would not have deteriorated in the way that it did and her employment would not have ended when it did, and she applied to the ET for permission to adduce expert medical evidence in relation to that issue. The ET refused her application on the ground that the medical report prepared by a consultant psychiatrist would not be necessary or be likely to be helpful. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET had misdirected itself or misapplied the law regarding permitting expert evidence, and that it had reached a decision on permitting expert evidence which was plainly wrong.

The EAT held that the ET went about the task in the wrong way and came to an impermissible view of the contents of the medical report. Accordingly, the EAT allowed the appeal and substituted a decision that the expert evidence should be permitted.