The Claimant, who is employed by the Respondent, brought a number of claims of direct sex discrimination, harassment, victimisation and detrimental treatment because she had made a protected disclosure, all of which were dismissed by the ET. The Claimant appealed against the dismissal of one complaint of harassment, arguing that the ET had not given full consideration to the conduct of one of her colleagues in anonymously sending a letter to two (out of a total of five) recipients that was critical of her abilities and practice. The Respondent cross-appealed on a time point relating to the same complaint.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in its consideration of the Respondent's conduct, as the Claimant argued, and that the ET had not specifically addressed the just and equitable jurisdiction to extend time, as the Respondent had argued; accordingly, the case would be remitted to the ET (a) to determine whether the Respondent's conduct in sending the letter to the two recipients was conduct related to sex, and (b) to consider whether it was just and equitable to extend time in relation to that complaint so as to make the presentation of it in time.