The Claimant was a courier in the delivery industry and was able, in addition to undertaking ad hoc deliveries, to sign up for pre-allocated three-hour slots for a guaranteed minimum payment. In relation to the pre-allocated slots, the Claimant alleged before the ET that he was engaged as an employee or a worker under a contract, or an umbrella contract, or a succession of single engagement contracts pursuant to section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA"). The ET found that the Claimant was not an employee of the Respondent within the meaning of section 230(1) ERA but that, whilst he was working on pre-allocated slots, he was a "worker" of the Respondent within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) ERA. The Respondent appealed on grounds relating to the ET's approach to (1) the substitution issue and (2) the question of whether the Claimant was in business on his own account.

The EAT held that the ET had been correct to find that there was no right of substitution if the Claimant had signed up for a slot which he no longer wished to work, and that the ET had correctly concluded that the Claimant was not in business on his own account.