The issue about unauthorised deductions from wages originated from the 2012 pay settlement negotiated by collective bargaining between the RMT, to which the Claimants belonged, and the Respondent, Nexus. The issue that arose was whether by implication that agreement changed the basis on which the respondent was entitled to calculate the shift allowance. The Claimants' contentions were that the effect of the pay settlement in 2012-2013 should have been an increase in pay of about 5% on average. The EJ found in favour of the Claimants saying that the Terms and Conditions of employment relating to the shift allowance were unambiguous and in this context he referred to the "officious bystander". The Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Although the ET had erred by considering whether a term needed to be implied and using the construct of the officious bystander rather than the conventional approach of considering "what a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean"? the ET had clearly reached the right result on the factual matrix.