The facts and background of the case were described in the EAT judgment [here](). The ET erroneously found the Union liable on the basis of the acts and omissions of the employed officials without making any finding as to whether the Claimant's sex formed part of their motivation and the EAT remitted the case back to the ET. The Respondent Union appealed against the remittal decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the EAT that the reasoning of the ET was flawed.