The Claimant was employed by the First Respondent, and she brought multiple complaints under the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA 2010") relating to a number of alleged matters. The ET dismissed all of the complaints, except one of harassment related to race which arose from an allegedly offensive comment made by a colleague of the Claimant to a group of people which included the Claimant; the ET was satisfied that the comment had the effect of creating a hostile and offensive environment for the Claimant and that it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect, and it awarded compensation for injury to the Claimant's feelings. The First Respondent appealed on the grounds that the ET had erred in failing to apply section 26(1)(a) of the EqA 2010, and that the ET's treatment of the facts amounted to an error of law because there was no evidence to support a particular finding of fact.

The EAT held that it was not clear that the ET had reached a conclusion that the conduct was related to race; or that, if it did, there was nothing in its reasoning which sufficiently explained or properly supported that conclusion; further, on the basis of the evidence before it, and the facts found, the ET could not have properly reached such a conclusion in this case. Accordingly, the EAT would not remit the matter, but simply quash the upholding of the complaint and the associated award of compensation.