The Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, and a re-engagement order was made which contained a formula for calculating the sum payable to the Claimant. The Claimant was not re-engaged and, at a subsequent remedy hearing, he was awarded a substantial sum. He claimed interest on the sum which would have been payable under the re-engagement order, but his claim was rejected by the ET. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT held that, although the re-engagement order contained an order to pay the Claimant a sum of money, that sum was conditional on re-engagement having been complied with or, more accurately, "taking place". "Non-compliance" suggests a breach, when in reality an order for re-engagement can legitimately be ignored, on pain of specified consequences. Once the re-engagement did not take place, a further order was made, and the original award fell away. The EAT concluded that interest should not be payable on a conditional award when the condition failed.