The Claimant was dismissed from her employment with the Respondent. She contended before the ET that she was dismissed because she had made earlier protected disclosures, while it was the Respondent's case that the reason for the Claimant's dismissal related to her conduct. The ET considered the public interest disclosures relied on by the Claimant and concluded that the claims had little reasonable prospect of success; it therefore struck out the claims and said that, if it had not struck out the claims, it would have ordered deposits of £500 to be paid. The Claimant appealed on a number of grounds, including that the ET erred in finding that two of the disclosures could not amount to protected disclosures on the basis that the Respondent had already been aware of the information disclosed, and that the ET only provided perfunctory reasons for making the deposit orders.

The EAT held that the ET's conclusion to strike out the claims had been reflective of its view of the evidence – as to the likelihood of success – rather than the "no reasonable prospect" test that it was bound to apply, and it had therefore been applying too low a test. As to the making of the deposit orders, the ET's decision would stand. Accordingly, the ET's decision in relation to striking out the claims would be set aside and replaced by the alternative finding that deposit orders should be made.