The Claimant, who had been employed by the Respondent for less than a year, was dismissed for poor performance. He brought a claim in the ET for automatic unfair dismissal, and the ET required him to pay a deposit as a condition of proceeding with his claim. The Claimant failed to pay the deposit by the due date, and his claim was struck out. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET erred in law (1) in making a deposit order at all because the claim did not have "little reasonable prospect of success", or (2) in failing to give any or any adequate reasons for setting the amount of the deposit order.

The EAT held that there had been sufficient material before the ET for it to make a deposit order. However, it was not possible to discern how the ET had taken the Claimant's means into account in fixing the amount of the deposit order; that amounted to a material error of law, and the deposit order would be set aside as a result; with the parties' agreement, the EAT fixed a revised amount of the deposit to be paid, at a level that the Claimant would be likely to be able to raise within 28 days and so as not to impede his access to justice.