The Claimant, who worked for the Appellant, faced disciplinary proceedings in relation to alleged conduct towards a colleague and was dismissed for gross misconduct. On the Claimant's claim of unfair dismissal, the ET stated that representatives of the Appellant "had a genuine belief that the Claimant was guilty of the conduct for which he was dismissed"; however, it found that the Appellant's investigation was outside the band of reasonable responses, and that the Appellant did not have reasonable grounds on which to base its decision as to the Claimant's guilt, and it concluded that the Claimant's dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. The Appellant appealed on grounds including that the ET had erred in failing to properly consider the issue of whether or not there were "reasonable grounds" for the Appellant's belief, and in substituting its view of the reasonableness of the investigation for that of the employer.

The EAT held that the ET had made no finding as to what the exact conduct was that constituted the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal, and that it had substituted its own view of the reasonableness of the Appellant's investigation. Accordingly, the ET's judgment would be set aside and the matter remitted to a fresh ET for a full rehearing.