The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent and brought claims in the ET including complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The Respondent's position was that the Claimant's start date was specified in his terms and conditions of employment, while the Claimant asserted that he had started a week earlier, during which time he undertook work for the Respondent in return for a cash payment. The ET preferred the Respondent's position and, since that meant that the Claimant did not have two years' continuous service, it dismissed the unfair dismissal claim; also, the ET decided that the Claimant was not, in law, a disabled person and dismissed his disability discrimination claims. The Claimant appealed against the rejection of his unfair dismissal claim on the grounds that the ET had erred in its decision because it had found that, by the earlier date, he "had clearly entered into the contract and commenced work under it" and/or that the ET failed to give adequate reasons.

The EAT held that the ET was fully entitled to reach the conclusion that the Claimant's work during the week in question was "unofficial" work which was not done under a contract with the Respondent; also, the ET had adequately explained why it concluded that the work done by the Claimant in that week was not done under a contract with the Respondent.