An ET concluded that there had been a transfer of an undertaking from the Second to the First Respondent, the Claimants had been assigned to the undertaking transferred, they were dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer and there was no economic, technical or organisational reason for the dismissals, which were therefore automatically unfair. The ET then determined what would have happened had the Claimants been treated fairly after the transfer had taken place. The ET concluded that there was 100% likelihood that they would have been selected for dismissal by reason of redundancy subsequent to the transfer; that the Claimants would have been dismissed fairly for gross misconduct, and that such dismissals would have taken place at the end of November 2018; and that both Claimants would have contributed by 70% to their dismissals for gross misconduct. The Claimants appealed these findings.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET's determination of issues of principle in relation to compensation were insufficiently reasoned and unsafe. The matter was remitted to the same ET to determine all outstanding remedy issues.