The Claimant was a healthcare assistant on a zero-hour contract with the Respondent. A letter from the Respondent included the sentence: In addition to [the hourly rate] you will be paid the Working Time Directive of 12.5% of the hourly rate for all hours worked. The letter included a clause that stated that as a casual worker the claimant would not be entitled to pay for sickness absence, occupational sick pay, or bank holidays not worked. There was no reference to an exclusion of any entitlement to holiday pay. The Claimant's payslip included an entry described as 'ETD pay'. She brought a claim to the ET complaining that she had not received holiday pay. The claim was struck out, the EJ saying that there was no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal finding that the arrangement was unlawful and that credit should not be given for the holiday pay received. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The letter was vague. The ET did not analyse the circumstances in which the arrangement was originally made, how it had been operated in practice and what the Claimant had understood. It was necessary for the ET to determine whether the arrangement could truly be said to be transparent and comprehensible. The burden lay upon the Respondent to establish that was the case. There was a core of disputed fact that meant that strike-out was inappropriate in the circumstances of the case.