The Claimant experienced serious problems at her workplace and had raised several grievances alleging victimisation. She was relocated to a different place of work (the Claimant's contract included a mobility clause) but she did not attend and was subsequently dismissed. The ET was satisfied that the reason for the Claimant's dismissal related directly to her conduct; namely her refusal to attend work or any meetings and her failure to engage with the Respondent on any meaningful level after her stated intention to return after a period of absence. More particularly, a previous ET claim - albeit raising some similar issues to those relating to the difficulties between the Claimant and her colleagues - was not the reason for her dismissal. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Reading the ET's reasoning as a whole, it was apparent that it had adequately engaged with the issues arising in relation to the mobility clause for the purposes of both claims and its explanation of its reasoning and conclusions was sufficient to the task required of it.