The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent, and he was contractually entitled to a car allowance. The ET found that the Respondent had sought to vary the Claimant's contract of employment without his consent, and the Claimant had not accepted this unilateral variation by working for a further month. The Respondent's failure to pay the Claimant his further month's salary had constituted a fundamental breach of contract, entitling the Claimant to resign, and there was no good reason why the Respondent should not pay the Claimant his car allowance in respect of the further month. The Claimant's resignation had been a constructive wrongful dismissal which entitled him to payment in lieu of two weeks' notice. The Respondent appealed, contending that (1) the ET's decision to award the Claimant his car allowance was a decision which was without evidence and/or perverse, and (2) the ET had erred in law in awarding the Claimant compensation for notice pay for the period after employment.

The EAT held that the ET had erred (1) in its approach to the car allowance claim, and (2) in determining that the Respondent's employer's contract claim could not proceed on the basis that the Claimant's claim had been limited to one for unauthorised deduction of wages. These matters would be remitted to a fresh ET.