The Claimant was seeking to pursue complaints of unlawful pregnancy and maternity discrimination in respect of the withdrawal of a job offer in February 2016, after she had informed the Respondent that she was pregnant. She had, however, only lodged her ET claim on 8 November 2016, several months out of time. The Claimant had given evidence to the ET of the physical and mental health issues she had suffered during the relevant period (her pregnancy had been high-risk and she had suffered depression and anxiety) and as to how she had only learned of her potential cause of action under English law (she had been living in Australia) sometime after the primary time limit had expired, initially thinking this meant she could no longer bring a claim. The ET concluded that the Claimant could, and should, then have done more to progress the lodgement of her ET claim but had delayed until November 2016.  In those circumstances, the ET did not consider it was just and equitable to extend time. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET's reasoning demonstrated a confusion and misunderstanding of the relevant chronology. It had either made material errors of fact - such as to mean it had failed to take into account all relevant matters and had had regard to that which was irrelevant - or it had failed to explain how it had reached its conclusions.