The Claimant had applied for flexible working which was refused by the Respondent so she took her claim to the ET. One of the witnesses she wanted to rely on was in Canada at the time so she applied for that witness to give evidence remotely. The ET responded by saying that the Claimant would have to abide by the Presidential Guidance. The Claimant took that reply to be refusal to allow the witness to give evidence remotely and she appealed that decision. She also appealed a decision that refused to order the disclosure of documentation relating to the Claimant's colleague who had been given permission to work from home - the Claimant argued that this evidence was highly relevant to her case.

The EAT dismissed the appeal on the first ground because in fact the ET had not refused her application for the witness to give evidence from Canada - it had merely stated that the Presidential Guidance should be followed. However, the ground relating to disclosure of documents was allowed - the documents were prima facie relevant to the claims before the employment tribunal and the decision does not explain why the Judge considered that they were not relevant.