The ET struck out, under Rule 37, all but one of the Claimant's claims on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospects of success. In respect of one claim - namely direct race discrimination relating to her dismissal - pursuant to Rule 39, the ET held that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and made a deposit order as a condition of continuing to advance that contention. The Claimant failed to pay any part of that sum. The ET struck out that claim pursuant to Rule 39(4). The Claimant appealed against 1) the refusal of the adjournment application/decision to proceed with the hearing in her absence, 2) the Rule 37 strike out and 3) the Deposit Order. As to the latter, she submitted there was no evidence to show ability to pay: cf. Rule 39(2).  In any event the copy Order served on her did not contain the second page with its notice of the potential consequence that in default the claim would be struck out: cf. Rule 39(3).

The EAT dismissed the Rule 37 strike out orders but allowed the appeal against the deposit order and the subsequent strike out, holding that on the financial information available the only appropriate Order was a deposit of a nominal sum. It was not necessary to make a decision on the Rule 39(3) point.