The First and Second Claimants were dismissed by the Respondent, a Mayfair restaurant. At the liability hearing, the ET upheld the First Claimant's unfair dismissal claim and added a 25 per cent ACAS uplift to any compensation awarded. At the first remedies hearing, the ET made an order for reinstatement of the First Claimant to his old job and an award of back pay; and, at the second remedies hearing, the ET accepted that it was not practicable for the Respondent to comply with the order to reinstate the First Claimant and, instead, made a revised compensation order. In relation to the liability judgment, the Respondent appealed on the grounds that the ET erred in law by agreeing to extend time for the discrimination claims, that the decision to increase the compensation by the maximum 25 per cent uplift was flawed by inadequate reasoning, and that the ET wrongly descended into the arena of conflict and rendered assistance to the Claimants at the expense of the Respondent below. In relation to the first remedies judgment, the Respondent attacked the ET's finding that it was practicable for it to reinstate the First Claimant to his old job; and, in relation to the second remedies judgment, the First Claimant challenged the ET's decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim, declining to act on the reinstatement order, refusing an additional award and awarding only compensation, capped at the statutory maximum.

The EAT held that the ET had not erred in any respect, and all three appeals were dismissed on all grounds.