The Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct and the ET found the dismissal was fair. The case was remitted to the ET after the Claimant appealed to the EAT. The effect of the EAT's Order was that the ET should decide who actually dismissed the Claimant, a Mr O'Donovan or a Mr Miranda, and, if the latter, whether the appeal process allowed a more severe sanction to be imposed on the Claimant without notice and whether, in all the circumstances, including the Respondent's Code of Conduct and the ACAS Code, and further evidence on those issues, the dismissal was fair in accordance with section 98(4) of the ERA and if not, to consider the various issues that might arise in relation to remedy including the issue of contribution and compensation. The ET once again found the dismissal was fair and the Claimant appealed again.

The EAT allowed the appeal on the basis that the ET had failed to comply with an Order by which the EAT remitted the case to the ET for it to consider the issues set out in that Order. The ET's view that it was open to it to decide for itself the issues which had been conclusively decided by the EAT and by which Decision it was bound was an error of law. That approach led in turn to the further error or law, which was to ignore the EAT's instructions and instead to carry out an enquiry of its own.