The Claimant brought claims in the ET against the Respondent for detriments done on the ground that she had made public interest disclosures, and for automatically unfair dismissal. The claim had been listed for a final hearing but, after a joint application for postponement was allowed, the Claimant applied to amend to add two further alleged protected disclosures. The ET refused the application, and the Claimant appealed on a number of grounds, including that the ET erred in law in failing to apply the "paramount test" in Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836.

The EAT held that the ET had not erred in law in refusing the application to amend, since it had directed itself as to the relevant law, applied the law on the basis of the submissions made to it, and reached a permissible conclusion. The EAT also reiterated that the Selkent factors should not be taken as a checklist to be ticked off to determine the application, but that they were factors to be taken into account in conducting the fundamental exercise of balancing the injustice or hardship of allowing or refusing an amendment.