The Claimant, having worked for 3 years as a live-in carer for the First Respondent's uncle, was dismissed. At a Preliminary Hearing to determine whether the Claimant was an employee of the First Respondent, the ET found that she was. The First Respondent appealed on the grounds that the ET had: (1) failed to analyse and determine the contractual relationship between parties as regards (a) substitution, (b) mutuality of obligations, and (c) annual leave and other unpaid absences; (2) failed to make appropriately detailed findings of fact and did not subject the relevant facts to the intense focus required in respect of (a) control, (b) substitution, and (c) annual leave and other unpaid absences; and (3) made internally inconsistent findings or findings unsupported by any evidence.

The EAT held that the ET had made no error of law in the findings that it had made.