The Claimant, who worked as one of a pool of "freelance" receptionists for the Respondents, brought a claim of unlawful discrimination based on pregnancy or maternity. In order to succeed, she needed to show that her contract with the Respondents was one of the contracts which qualifies as a form of "employment" for the purposes of section 83 Equality Act 2010. Having reviewed the basis on which the Claimant performed her work, and having accepted that the Respondents' contractual arrangement with the Claimant permitted the use of substitutes, the ET concluded that the contract was a "contract personally to do work". The Respondents appealed, focusing on whether the Claimant's work was personal in character and whether performance by a substitute deprived the contract of its personal character.

The EAT held that the ET had failed to attach sufficient weight to the Respondents' willingness to accept substitutionary performance from members of the pool of workers or, if it was necessary, anyone who they were satisfied was suitable for the role of receptionist.