The Claimant is an IT professional, who worked on a temporary IT project that a business was carrying out for a client. A preliminary issue arose about who employed the Claimant. The Claimant had been recruited by a recruitment company. There was a relatively complex series of contracts between the business, the recruitment agency, an “umbrella company”, and the Claimant, underpinning the Claimant’s work arrangements. The Claimant had a written contract of employment with the umbrella company, but contended he was actually employed by the business carrying out the IT project. The ET ruled that the Claimant's employer was the umbrella company and the Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET did not err in law when it found that the Claimant’s employer was the umbrella company, and not the business carrying out the IT project. The ET applied the correct approach of finding the facts, and applying the law to them. Its decision demonstrated that it properly sought to ascertain what was in truth and reality agreed between the parties, and had given adequate consideration to the wider picture, before deciding the written employment contract with the umbrella company reflected the true agreement between the parties about the Claimant’s employer. Read as a whole, the decision of the ET on the issues before it was adequately reasoned.