The Claimant was a domestic worker and brought claims against the Respondent including not being paid the NMW. She argued that Regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (which excludes from the definition of "work" for the purposes of the NMWR 1999 work of whatever description related to the employer's family household, done by a worker treated as a member of the family, where certain conditions are satisfied) was ultra vires, and/or should be dis-applied as incompatible with Article 157 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") and/or should be read consistently with the Recast Directive 2006 (2006/54), all on the premise that the Regulation 2(2) exemption unlawfully indirectly discriminates against women, putting them at a particular disadvantage, and cannot be objectively justified. The ET held that Regulation 2(2) did apply to the Claimant's employment but they failed to list the Claimant's challenge to the lawfulness of Regulation 2(2) for a further hearing. The Claimant's application for a reconsideration was dismissed and she appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET did not address the Claimant's compatibility challenge in relation to Regulation 2(2) NMWR 1999 and refused reconsideration of this issue. That was an error of law. The compatibility issue was remitted for consideration, preferably, by a Regional Employment Judge.