The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Fire Fighter from 21 January 2001. After an investigation into his conduct, the Claimant was given a final written warning for 24 months, demotion, and mandatory redeployment to a non-instructor role for a period of not less than 60 months. The Claimant made a claim to the ET and attached a summary produced by his trade union representative. The summary was discursive and did not clearly set out the legal complaints. There were various orders to the effect of asking the Claimant to clarify which parts of his claim he proposed should be amended, the EJ concluding that he had not complied with those orders. His application to amend his claim was therefore dismissed. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. Even though the claim (described by the EJ as a 'dog's breakfast') was discursive and not produced by a lawyer, the suggestion that the amended claim be based on the original document attached to the Claim Form, presumably with additions underlined and any text to be removed struck through, or some similar colour coding made it likely that the claim would be a 'dog's dinner'. The task of considering the amendment application was nowhere near as much of a challenge as the Respondent asserted, and the EJ accepted it to be. In addition, the EJ did not fully consider the balance of justice in allowing or refusing the amendment.