The Claimant, who was age 60, was dismissed after the Respondent found that his experience and skill set were not suited to the role he was in. Before the dismissal, they tried to agreed terms of his departure but failed. The Claimant made it clear that he did not wish to 'retire'. The ET ruled that the Claimant was not dismissed for reasons to do with his age. The explanation given by the Respondent for the claimant's dismissal was that they did not consider that the Claimant was capable of fulfilling the role he wished him to perform going forward and the reference to retirement was not any indication of the reason why his employment was terminated but a matter of positioning it as retirement for presentation only, to preserve the claimant's dignity by avoiding people knowing that he had been dismissed. The Claimant appealed, the first ground being that the ET judgment was not Meek compliant.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The Claimant had been told why he lost his case; it was because the Tribunal accepted that the Respondent's reason for dismissal was their concern that the Claimant was not capable of fulfilling the role that the Respondent wished him to perform. The Claimant may not agree with that reason but that disagreement did not give rise to any ground of appeal.