This case concerned the employment status of agency workers. The original employment tribunal held that certain terms of the contract between the agency (Consistent) and their end user client were a "sham". The claim that the agency workers themselves were self-employed was rejected and Consistent was held to be their employer. On appeal, the EAT upheld that finding (see EAT 18 May 2007 [1]). Consistent appealed to the Court of Appeal.