The Claimant, who was a door supervisor, was summarily dismissed without investigation or proper procedure after she left work part-way through a shift after an argument with a colleague. The ET ruled that she had been unfairly dismissed but characterised as gross misconduct the failure by the Claimant to have telephoned the Respondent immediately to explain that she was leaving the venue. However, such a requirement was nowhere be found in the Respondent’s code of conduct, neither was it the basis for the dismissal as set out in the ET3. The Claimant's basic award and compensatory award were reduced by 100%. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The finding that the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct was perverse and not open to the ET on the evidence. The EAT remitted the matter to a differently constituted tribunal to deal with all matters of remedy on the basis that the finding of unfair dismissal stood, but that the ET was not entitled to consider the Claimant's conduct as gross misconduct.