The Respondent realised, after a full hearing, that he had failed to seek payment of unused holiday entitlement. The parties were granted an opportunity to make further submissions, and the request for payment exposed a difference of opinion between the parties as to the construction of the Respondent's contract of employment. The ET on reconsideration agreed that, under his contract of employment, the Respondent was entitled to payment; this was on the basis that his holidays had to be taken in time allocated to shifts and, since the Respondent had not taken holidays in the time he had worked, he was entitled to be paid the value of the holidays he had not worked. The Appellants, his employers, appealed the judgment.

The EAT held that the ET had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Respondent's contract, even though it had not provided a detailed exposition of its views.