The Claimants were, at all material times, employed as agency workers by the First Respondent, a company which solely provides a flexible work resource for the Second Respondent. They presented 12 complaints in the ET of alleged breaches of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 by the Respondents, of which five succeeded. The Respondents had five grounds of appeal relating to three issues – (1) access to internal vacancies, (2) shift length, and (3) section 1 statements – and the Claimants had five grounds of appeal – (4) late payment of a pay increase, (5) attendance at worktime training sessions, (6) opportunities for overtime, (7) average pay rate used on payslips, and (8) scheduling of breaks.

The EAT held that issues (1) and (2) for the Respondents, and issue (4) for the Claimants, succeeded. There was no need to remit issues (1) and (2) to the ET, because the appeals were concerned with pure points of law against a background of agreed facts, and a finding that the Claimants' claims on these issues were dismissed would be substituted; issue (4) would be remitted to a fresh ET to determine whether there would have been an implied term in the Claimants' contracts of employment, if they had been direct recruits, to the effect that the pay rise would be implemented within a reasonable time and, if so, whether the pay rise was implemented for the Claimants within a reasonable time.