The Respondent, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, began proceedings in the ET claiming equal pay and alleging race and sex discrimination. The First ET hearing, at which the Respondent was a litigant in person, ruled that parts of the proceedings, including evidence relating to the Respondent's named comparator, should be kept private, but that the order could be subject to review at the full hearing. The Second ET hearing, at which the Respondent was represented by Counsel and further documents and witness statements were presented, decided that the First ET order should be revoked in its entirety. The Appellant appealed on the grounds that the Second ET (1) wrongly interpreted the First ET order as giving the Second ET a general power to review it, (2) incorrectly applied rule 29 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, and (3) erred in deciding the merits.

The EAT held that the Second ET had reached a conclusion that it was entitled to reach, and there was no basis for a challenge based on perversity or error of principle.