The Claimant participated in a conversation with a journalist, which included some discussion about the case and about a particular aspect of the Claimant's evidence. Concluding that the Claimant had indeed been party to a discussion about her evidence, in flagrant disregard of the warnings given by the ET on six separate occasions that she must not do so when still giving evidence, the ET concluded that it had irretrievably lost trust in the Claimant and could no longer fairly hear her case. It therefore struck out the Claimant's case. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had been entitled to make the findings it did as to what had taken place and had permissibly concluded that the Claimant had thereby unreasonably conducted the proceedings. The ET had gone on to consider whether it could still conduct a fair trial of the Claimant's case but, having concluded that trust had broken down, had correctly concluded it was not. The ET had also asked itself whether a strike out was proportionate and had considered other alternatives.