Essentially, what fell to be considered was the rate of pay to which the worker was entitled where they were contractually obliged to spend the night at or near their workplace on the basis that they are expected to sleep for all or most of the period but may be woken if required to undertake some specific activity. The issue in this appeal was whether the entirety of the period spent on the premises under such arrangements must be taken into account in calculating an employer's obligations under the National Minimum Wage Regulations or only such time as is spent actually performing some specific activity. The EAT ruled in favour of the Claimant and the Respondent appealed.

The court allowed the appeal, holding that sleepers-in were to be characterised for the purpose of the NMW Regulations as available for work, within the meaning of regulation 15 (1)/32, rather than actually working, within the meaning of regulation 3/30, and so fall within the terms of the sleep-in exception in regulation 15 (1A)/32 (2).The court was not bound by authority to come to any different conclusion. The result is that the only time that counts for NMW purposes is time when the worker is required to be awake for the purposes of working.