The Claimant was dismissed after failing to deliver 2 parcels. The Respondent found that he was guilty of "Intentional delay of mail" which is one of a number of offences said in the Respondent's code of conduct to amount to gross misconduct for which summary dismissal would be warranted. The Claimant denied the failure was intentional but admitted to lying to the Respondent when he told them he had delivered the parcels when he hadn't. His claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed by the ET, the ET saying that he had admitted the misconduct alleged. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET had erred in concluding that a dismissal was fair when it had mis-recorded that the Claimant had admitted the misconduct alleged. In fact there were two aspects of misconduct, one of which the Claimant had denied throughout. The other aspect was arguably not gross misconduct, that is conduct for which dismissal would have been within the range of reasonable responses. Even it were, the ET had not dealt with the point.