The Claimant had been on a list of candidates put forward by a recruitment agency for interview by the Respondent, but the Respondent removed the Claimant's name from the list and did not invite him to attend the interview. It was the Claimant's case that this amounted to less favourable treatment because of race, specifically because he was black and/or of Nigerian origin. The ET was satisfied that there was no basis for saying that the Respondent's decision related to race or nationality, and it dismissed the Claimant's claim of race discrimination. The Claimant appealed on a new ground of appeal, alleging that the ET had failed to identify and address that the Claimant was seeking to pursue a claim of race discrimination regarding the fact that he had attended the assessment day for appointment to a sales role with the Respondent but had not been appointed following that assessment.

The EAT held that the ET had not erred in determining the claim that was before it, rather than a different case which was never articulated by the Claimant. The issues had been correctly identified by the ET, and there never was any case other than that considered and rejected by the ET.