The Claimant worked for the First Respondent, which is an employment agency supplying temporary workers to the Second Respondent. The Claimant alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with their obligations under the AWR by providing him with only 28 days' annual leave and 30 minutes of paid rest breaks whereas direct recruits were entitled to 30.5 days' annual leave and one-hour paid rest breaks. The ET dismissed his claims and found that the differences in annual leave and rest breaks were compensated for by the Claimant's higher rate of hourly pay. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the main ground of appeal, saying that the shortfalls in entitlement to annual leave and rest breaks could not be compensated for by the payment of an enhanced hourly rate. However, the EAT ruled that there was no requirement to provide an agency worker with precisely the same number of working hours as the hirer's employees.