The Claimant had a contract with a company, Pontoon, to provide services to the National Grid. When his contract with Pontoon was terminated, he commenced termination and detriment proceedings in the ET against the National Grid. The Claimant subsequently applied to add Pontoon as a Respondent to the proceedings and, despite Pontoon's objections that the application to amend to include a claim for detriment was a new cause of action which was substantially out of time, the ET allowed the amendment. Pontoon's application for reconsideration of the ET's judgment was refused. Pontoon appealed to the EAT, contending that, amongst other things, the ET erred in granting the Claimant leave to amend to add a claim of termination of his contract for having made protected disclosures, without having considered the matters required for amendment as set out in Selkent Bus Co v Moore.

The EAT held that the ET had not erred in law; consequently, the appeals against the original decision and the application for reconsideration would be dismissed.