The Claimant, an employee of the Respondent, contended that a Special Negotiating Body (SNB), set up for the purposes of establishing an EWC, had ceased to exist (because it had failed to conclude an agreement with the specified time), and so he was a "relevant person" under reg 20 TICE to present a complaint to the CAC. The CAC held that the question of whether the SNB was in existence was a question of fact, and it found as a fact that the SNB had continued in existence beyond the relevant date. The Claimant appealed on the basis that that the CAC failed properly to construe the statutory role of the SNB and the parameters of its existence as a legal entity.

The EAT held that the CAC was right to decide that the SNB had continued to exist, and therefore that the Claimant was not a "relevant applicant" for the purpose of reg 20 TICE.