The Respondent was a Prison Officer and a member of the Appellant Union, and he was Chair of the Union's National Executive Committee ("NEC"). He decided to stand for parliamentary election, and was required by the Union's Rules to resign as a Prison Officer; he wrote to the NEC, informing it of his decision, in terms that the Appellant Union understood to include his resignation as Chair of the NEC. The Certification Officer held that the Respondent had not resigned as Chair of the NEC (and had therefore been wrongly prevented from holding a position on the NEC), and the Union appealed.

The EAT concluded that the Respondent had clearly and unambiguously resigned from the office of Chair of the NEC; the Certification Officer's declaration was set aside, and the decision was substituted accordingly.