The Claimant is employed by the First Respondent, a company which solely provides a flexible work resource for the Second Respondent. The First Respondent's employees are managed by managers seconded from the Second Respondent, and there is a Secondment Agreement and a Support Services Agreement between the two companies. At a preliminary hearing, the ET held that the Claimant was an "agency worker" within the meaning of regulation 3 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 ("the 2010 Regulations") and that the First Respondent was a "temporary work agency" within regulation 4 of the 2010 Regulations. The First Respondent appealed, contending that the ET had misinterpreted and/or wrongly applied the authorities of Moran v Ideal Cleaning Services Ltd [2014] and Brooknight Guarding Ltd v Matei [2018] on the meaning of "temporary" and "to work temporarily".

The EAT held that the ET had correctly summarised the law, [including the decisions in Moran and Brooknight,]() and it had rightly noted that it was not the contract with the agency that had to be temporary for the 2010 Regulations to apply, but the basis of the work for which the Claimant was supplied to the hirer pursuant to it; further, the ET had specifically considered the open-ended nature of the contract between the Claimant and the First Respondent, and it did not err in concluding that this did not, as such, have any bearing on the nature of the supply.