The two Claimants had separately brought claims before the ET. Due to an on-going IPCC investigation related to the claims and the possibility that there might be disciplinary proceedings as a result of any IPCC report, the Respondent stated that they were unable to plead to the ET claims and had sought a stay of the ET proceedings. That application had initially been heard by the ET in September 2015 and by its Order of October 2015 the ET had stayed those proceedings. Since then, however, there had been significant delays in the IPCC investigation and the Claimants had sought a lifting of the ET stay, an application that was heard by the ET in July 2017 but refused. The Claimants appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET was obliged to start from the premise that the Claimants had a right to have their claims before it litigated and determined without delay. However, the ET's reasoning seemed to suggest that it saw the burden as being on the Claimants to show why the stay should be lifted. The EAT was unable to be satisfied that the conclusion reached could be seen as safe, given that they could not be sure that the ET had started in the right place.