The Appellant was originally dismissed by a letter of 2 April 2014 from his employer, the Respondent, but was informed by a letter dated 24 June 2014 that his appeal had been successful. The Appellant was not satisfied with the terms of the letter of 24 June 2014, which left important matters unresolved, and so refused to return to work. On 17 July 2014 the Appellant filed claims with the ET, including a claim of unfair dismissal. At a preliminary hearing, the ET identified as a question for determination whether as at 17 July 2014 there had been a dismissal of the Appellant so as to allow him to bring that claim and answered that question in the affirmative. The ET held that the decision on the Appellant's appeal under the contractual procedure did not undo the effect of the earlier summary dismissal, because there was no contractual provision which bound the Appellant to accept that a successful appeal under that procedure had the effect of wiping out the previous dismissal. The EAT allowed the Respondent's appeal, considering that in law it had been the Appellant's own choice not to return to work with the Respondent, rather than having been dismissed. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal initially dismissed the appeal saying that it is clearly implicit in a term in an employment contract conferring a contractual right to appeal against disciplinary action taking the form of dismissal that, if an appeal is lodged, pursued to its conclusion and is successful, the effect is that both employer and employee are bound to treat the employment relationship as having remained in existence throughout. However, the court invited the parties to make written submissions as to whether the appeal should be allowed on the basis that the EAT should have addressed whether or not the Appellant had been constructively dismissed because the Respondent had not satisfactorily resolved the allegations against the Appellant. The appeal was allowed on this new basis.