The Claimant, who worked for the Respondent, refused to attend the site of a particular client because, on a previous occasion, he had been unpleasantly treated and had not been allowed a rest break. When he was dismissed – having been told that, if he did not go to that client, he would not have a job – he brought various claims in the ET including complaints of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal in respect of the WTR under sections 45A and 101A Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA"). The ET considered that there was insufficient evidence from the Claimant about why he was refusing to go to the particular client, and so it dismissed his claims of working time detriment and dismissal. The Claimant appealed on a number of grounds, including that the ET failed to make a crucial finding of fact as to whether the requirement for him to go to the client was a requirement imposed, or proposed to be imposed, by the Respondent in contravention of the WTR.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence, for the purposes of sections 45A and 101A ERA, of the reasons for the Claimant's refusal. Accordingly, in respect of the detriment claim, the ET's judgment would be set aside; the question of the claim of automatic unfair dismissal, however, would be remitted to the same ET to determine whether the Claimant's refusal, or proposal to refuse, was the reason or principal reason for the dismissal.