The Claimant worked shifts as an "out of hours" telephonist for the Respondent, and was dismissed after an internal investigation determined that she had been paid for shifts that she had not worked. She claimed unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, and the ET upheld her claims. The ET acknowledged that the Respondent sought to emphasise the breach of its internal procedures rather than the Claimant's alleged financial gain. The Respondent appealed on the grounds that: the ET improperly substituted its own view for that of the Respondent when deciding whether the Respondent had acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating the reason for dismissal as a sufficient reason; and the ET erred in its application of s 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) by failing to consider all the circumstances of the case. The Respondent also argued that the 50% contribution was perverse; while the Claimant cross-appealed against the 50% contribution, contending that no finding of contributory fault should have been made.

The EAT held that the ET's approach to the question of whether or not the dismissal was an unfair dismissal under the ERA was incorrect, since it seemed unclear what finding it had made as to the reason for dismissal. The case would be remitted to the same ET or a fresh ET for reconsideration from scratch.