The Claimant held a senior position in the Respondent organisation, but was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing that concluded he had been grossly negligent in his "strategic responsibilities". The Claimant argued before the ET that his actions could not properly be characterised as misconduct, and that his dismissal was rather for "some other substantial reason" (SOSR) or capability, but this argument was rejected by the ET.

The EAT held that the ET was entitled to reach the conclusion that it did, given that it had found that the conduct in issue was the Claimant's fundamental failure to initiate rigorous financial management systems. In the circumstances, the ET had not been bound to find that this was a SOSR or capability dismissal.