The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent and, on his original claim to the ET, it was found that the dismissal was not unfair. On the Claimant's appeal against the first ET decision, the EAT found that the ET had erred in two respects and remitted the claim for a complete rehearing by a fresh ET. The second ET concluded that the dismissal was not unfair, and the Claimant appealed on the grounds that (1) the ET failed to address the substantial grounds advanced by the Claimant as to why his dismissal was unfair, (2) the ET devised its own explanation for the purpose of the investigation into the Claimant's conduct, which explanation had not been advanced even by the Respondent, and then used that explanation as a basis of absolving the Respondent from the effects of its defective investigation process, and (3) insofar as the ET dealt with the arguments advanced by the Claimant, it failed to provide adequate reasons why those arguments were rejected.

The EAT held that the ET did not fail to give a Meek-compliant decision or err as alleged in any of the grounds of appeal.