The Claimant was unable to satisfy the Respondent, his employer, that he was legally entitled to continue working in the UK, as a result of an error on the part of the UK Border Agency. He was dismissed, and the Respondent referred to s 98(1)(b) and (2)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996 in its reasons for the dismissal. The Claimant argued that the Respondent had relied solely on s 98(1)(b) ("some other substantial reason"), but the ET found that the dismissal fell within s 98(2)(d), namely that "the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention … of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment".

The EAT held that the ET's decision contained no error of law since this was, in truth, no more than a labelling exercise.