The Claimant worked for the Respondent in a team that was being reorganised. The existing team members were advised that there was a risk of redundancy and, when the Claimant was unsuccessful in being appointed to one of the replacement roles or obtaining alternative employment within the Respondent, he was made redundant. The Claimant claimed unfair dismissal on a number of grounds, asserting that the redundancy exercise had been a sham, designed to get rid of him and others. The ET rejected the Claimant's claim of unfair dismissal, and the Claimant appealed on the grounds that (1) the ET failed to decide whether the situation which the Respondent termed a "redundancy situation" did in fact fit within the statutory definition of redundancy, and (2) the conclusion that the reason for dismissal was redundancy was perverse.

The EAT held that the ET, in considering the first ground of appeal, failed to deal in sufficient detail with the question whether, even if there was no sham, there was no genuine redundancy situation; but it dismissed the second ground. Accordingly, the case would be remitted to a fresh ET, with the re-hearing limited to the question of whether the reason for dismissal amounted to a genuine redundancy situation.