Three Claimants, who were drivers for Addison Lee, succeeded in their claim that they were limb (b) workers within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Many other drivers subsequently made similar claims. Addison Lee submitted grounds of resistance which the Claimants applied to have struck out and for deposit orders to be made in respect of them. The ET declined the strike out application but imposed deposit orders totalling £125,000 on Addison Lee. Addison Lee appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. When assessing whether specific allegations or arguments had little reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of making a deposit order (under rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure), an ET was entitled to consider the outcome of previous litigation between Addison Lee and different claimants raising the same arguments on identical facts. Hollington v Hewthorn distinguished. The reasons given by the ET for declining to strike out the allegations and arguments in question were not inconsistent with proceeding to make deposit orders in respect of them. The test for striking out was different from the test for making deposit orders and the ET’s reasoning did not require the same result.