Following a full merits hearing the ET reserved its decision. In due course it promulgated its reserved judgment dismissing all of the Claimant's claims. On a later date it promulgated its reasons for that judgment. The Claimant's contention that it was an error of law not to promulgate the reasons at the same time as the judgment failed. While the practice was not to be encouraged, and carried certain dangers, it was not contrary to the rules to promulgate the reasons on a later date. The Claimant also applied for a reconsideration of the ET's decision. The judge concluded that there was no prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and refused the application on paper. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ground of challenge to the liability decision failed, as did the "reasons" challenge to the reconsideration. Although the challenge to the decision of the judge to invite the respondent's comments on the application, was, as such, meritorious, the decision to refuse the reconsideration, as such, must stand. The judgments dismissing the claims, and dismissing the reconsideration application, therefore both stood.