The Claimant was dismissed by the Appellants and claimed unfair dismissal. It was accepted before the ET that a redundancy had arisen; the issue was whether or not the Appellants had complied with section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA") regarding the fairness of the dismissal, by not including the Claimant on a list of people they could turn to if they had a labour shortage. The ET accepted that the Appellants' failure to put him on the list was unreasonable and in breach of section 98(4) ERA, and so it held that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The Appellants appealed.

The EAT held, allowing the appeal, that the ET had to be satisfied, under section 98(4) ERA, that there was a sufficient reason for dismissing the Claimant; in this case, placing the Claimant on the list would not have avoided dismissal – although it would have opened the prospect of work, it would not have secured work. Therefore, the Appellants' decision not to place the Claimant on the list was not a decision that fell within the scope of the section. The appeal would be upheld and the claim dismissed.