The Claimant was a driver whose job was to remove spent grain (draff) from distilleries and unload it into a tip to be used for animal feed. The Claimant complained about the difficulty he had with taking breaks during his night shifts as a result of changes to the plant processes as well as referring to a caustic exposure incident several years earlier and eventually resigned, claiming constructive dismissal. The Respondent had also used another colleague to check on him prior to him leaving. The ET considered whether certain incidents, including an investigation into the Claimant's conduct, could be regarded as a final straw event, and whether the events were repudiatory in character; they concluded they were not and dismissed the Claimant's claims. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET had erred by stating that if a ‘last straw’ incident is ‘not repudiatory in nature it will not revive earlier acts’. This was a misdirection and thus an error in law.