The Claimant, an associate special surgeon, brought claims in the ET for direct and indirect race discrimination and harassment in relation to a number of alleged discriminatory acts and types of treatment that he claimed that he had suffered since October 2007, and he contended that he had made a victimisation claim. At a preliminary hearing, the ET struck out a number of the claims as being out of time, and the Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET (1) erred in striking out the claims and not extending the time limit, (2) overlooked his victimisation claim, and (3) wrongly sent written reasons from the preliminary hearing to his former legal representative, leading to a reconsideration claim being dismissed as out of time.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in striking out the claims, and it should only have done so (applying the principle in Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2003] ICR 530) if the Claimant had not established a prima facie case relating to the continuing discriminatory state of affairs, the claims were not capable of being part of such a state of affairs, and it was not reasonably arguable that there was such a state of affairs; the other grounds of appeal were dismissed. Accordingly, the claims would be considered by the ET dealing with the full merits of the claims.