The Claimant, who was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA") because of anxiety/depression, was dismissed by the Respondent, and minutes of the termination meeting described the reason for dismissal in generic terms as being "… due to performance, attendance, or unauthorised absence, behaviours, probation, work volume". The ET concluded that the real reason for dismissal was that the Respondent required fewer employees, and was satisfied that the Claimant's dismissal was not affected by "something arising" from his disability. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET failed to have regard to or apply section 136 of the EqA when reaching its decision, and that the ET's finding on the basis for the decision to terminate the Claimant's employment was perverse (since it was unsupported by any evidence and contrary to such evidence as there was).

The EAT held that it was unfortunate that the ET did not at least refer to the provisions of section 136 of the EqA, but this did not mean that the ET was unaware of them and their potential relevance; further, the mere fact that a case was initially advanced on an incorrect basis did not prevent the ET from being able to arrive at a clear conclusion.