The Claimant was employed as an associate lecturer by the Respondent University and commenced employment on 30 January 2006. He brought various claims including less favourable treatment under the Part time Workers Regulations. The ET considered whether he was employed under the same type of contract as his comparator; Mr Mark Leader, who was employed as a lecturer on a full-time contract. On the authority of the European Court of Justice's judgment in Wippel v Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH [2005] IRLR 211, the ET found that Mr Leader was not a comparable full time worker and in those circumstances, as there was no valid full time worker for the part time worker's complaint, the claim was dismissed. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowd the appeal. The ET had erred in concluding that Wippel v Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH & Co KG [2005] IRLR 211 ECJ led to the conclusion that the Claimant and his full-time comparator were not employed on the same type of contract. The case was remitted to the Tribunal to determine whether the part-time worker was engaged in the same, or broadly similar, work pursuant to Regulation 2(4)(a)(ii) and, if so, whether he had been subjected to unjustified less favourable treatment contrary to Regulation 5.