The Respondent is a security company which employs security guards on what are described as 'zero-hour contracts' to guard premises at a variety of sites in London.The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a security officer on a zero-hour contract until his dismissal 21 months later. Apart from one short stint with another end user, he worked exclusively at sites controlled by Mitie. The Respondent argued that the Claimant worked permanently for Mitie. The ET rejected that submission and found that the Respondent was a temporary work agency as defined by Regulation 4 of the Regulations, finding it was clear that the Respondent was a company engaged in the economic activity (operating for a profit) of supplying individuals - namely the Claimant and others - to work temporarily for, and under the supervision and direction of, a hirer. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The issue they had to decide was whether the Claimant was working temporarily. The ET had had regard to the zero-hours nature of the Claimant's contract and the relatively short duration of his employment with the Respondent but also found that the Claimant was being supplied to work to provide specific cover for Mitie, as and when required, and would thus be temporarily working for the fixed duration of the absence being covered.