This appeal concerned the identification of the correct Respondent against which the Claimant should make claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal. He had signed a contract of employment which purported to be from Dynasystems for Trade and General Consulting Company (R1) but he was also sent a letter, for passport reasons, signed by Mr Reuter who was the Head of Legal, not for Dynasystems For Trade and General Consulting Co but for Dynasystems Ltd (R2). The ET upheld complaints made to her that the Claimant had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed and upheld a complaint that the Respondent - in her view the proper Respondent being R2, Dynasystems Ltd - was in breach of its contract with him. The Respondents appealed.

The EAT dismissed all 4 grounds of appeal. In particular, they rejected the argument that Autoclenz v Belcher was misapplied in that Autoclenz looks to establish the true agreement at the outset made between the parties. What is not in issue are matters which had happened some time after the contract was entered into - which might be said to reflect a view of the contractual arrangements - which is different from that in fact entered into at the outset.