The claimant sought to appeal a decision that Royal Mail's switch from paper to digital only payslips complied with the requirement under s8 of the ERA 1996, that a worker be "given" an itemised pay statement. The ET had found that the word “given” was not limited to physical delivery but encompassed making the information available in a readable, written form. In the EAT, the claimant argued, in person, that the ET wrongly interpreted "given" as meaning "given access to," contending this was circular, contrary to the ordinary meaning of the word, and effectively rendered the section meaningless. He further argued the respondent's app-based system improperly conditioned access on employees using personal devices, unpaid time, and public facilities, amounting to coercion, and raised concerns about privacy and data tracking, though this had not been properly pleaded below.

HHJ Beard dismissed the appeal, holding that "given" should be construed purposively rather than literally, the statutory purpose being transparency not any particular delivery method. Electronic provision could satisfy the requirement, provided employees could access the information freely. Here the claimant had free, genuine access via his smartphone but simply chose not to use it. The outcome was, however, fact dependent however: genuine privacy or access concerns could yield a different outcome in different circumstances.