The Claimant, who worked as a security guard on a zero hours contract, was diabetic but had not disclosed this to the Respondent. He had a hypoglycaemic attack at work and as a result of the incident he was removed from the site by the Respondent and as there were no other vacancies or positions for him elsewhere within the company no alternative work was immediately found for him. The ET found that the Claimant requested his P45 so that he could sign on for state benefits, which he then did, and that he had tendered his resignation. The ET, having heard the evidence, decided that he was not dismissed but that he resigned. The Claimant made a rule 3(10) application against this and various disability discrimination decisions.

The EAT dismissed the application. The issues were meticulously set out and comprehensively dealt with at the ET. At each stage the ET explained their factual findings, why they had been reached and they did so clearly by reference to the evidence before them and the arguments of the respective parties.