The Claimant, who is in her 60s, has worked for the Respondent for more than 25 years. She brought a claim in the ET for indirect age discrimination, alleging that she was indirectly discriminated against when she was not able to apply for promotion on two occasions because she was not in the Respondent's "Talent Pool". The ET found that the Respondent had a provision, criterion or practice ("PCP") of only promoting managerial staff who were in their Talent Pool, but it found that there was no causal link between the PCP and the individual disadvantage suffered by the Claimant, because she had not realistically tried to gain entry to the Talent Pool. The ET also considered the issue of group disadvantage (namely, for people of the Claimant's age group); and it was satisfied that the Respondent's actions were justified. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET erred in concluding (1) that there was no causal link between the relevant PCP and the disadvantage that she suffered, and (2) that the PCP was objectively justified.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in finding that the Claimant was not put at a disadvantage by the PCP; further, the EAT was satisfied that the decision regarding objective justification could not stand. The EAT would invite submissions as to disposal.