The Claimant's claims of unfair dismissal based on a constructive dismissal claim and of discrimination arising out of her part-time worker status were heard by an EJ sitting alone when it should have been heard before a panel. The matter was relisted but the EJ made a deposit order against the Claimant. The Claimant applied to have the deposit order varied which was refused and the claim was eventually struck out as a result of non payment of the deposit order. After various correspondence with the EAT to appeal the decision, but which was not done using the official forms, and after a considerable administrative delay, the appeal was rejected on the sift. The Claimant appealed first in respect of the reasoning to be engaged with when a deposit is ordered and secondly, in response to the time limit issues raised by the Respondent.

The EAT allowed the appeal. First, on the time issue, the ET had not provided the Judgment leaflet which informs parties of the process of appealing that is usually included with final judgments. The EAT found that the Claimant, because of the wording of orders and in the absence of the leaflet, was not aware that it was possible to appeal a deposit order. This was treated as an exceptional reason for the purposes of granting an extension to appeal. On the amount of the deposit order, the EJ had not given reasons for the decision that the Claimant could meet the deposits ordered within the time set out and had failed to make an analysis of the income and outgoings of the Claimant.