The Claimants were employed by a company (now dissolved) supplying agency workers to the Appellant. Under reg 5 AWR, agency workers broadly have a right to the same conditions, including pay, as if they were directly employed by the hirer. Both the employer and the hirer may be liable for any breach of that right, but there are provisions for apportionment. The Claimants brought claims that they had been unfairly treated under the AWR, including not receiving equal pay; and issues of liability and remedy, including assessments of compensation, were considered by the ET and the EAT.

The Court of Appeal held that the approaches of both the ET and the EAT to the assessment of compensation were wrong. It recommended remittal to the original EJ, for the purpose set out above.