The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent and brought a claim in the ET for unfair dismissal. The ET concluded that the Respondent's stated reason for dismissing the Claimant was not genuine and was a sham, and so it held that the dismissal was unfair; the ET also concluded that the Claimant would have been dismissed within six months of the actual date of dismissal, due to the breakdown of the working relationship between the parties, and it reduced the compensatory award by 75%. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET had made a perverse decision regarding the likelihood of dismissal if an unfair dismissal had not occurred, and that the ET failed to give reasons for its conclusions that (i) dismissal would have occurred and (ii) dismissal would have occurred within six months.

The EAT held that the ET was perfectly entitled to reach the conclusion that the Claimant would not have changed his behaviour and would have been dismissed fairly as a result; further, the ET gave entirely logical and comprehensible reasons for its conclusion that the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event.