The Claimant, an agency worker, brought a claim in the ET that he had been subject to detriment and/or dismissed for making protected disclosures. The Respondents applied for strike out or a deposit order, on the basis that there was little or no reasonable prospect of success in the allegation that the Claimant had made a protected disclosure. The ET struck out the claim, and the Claimant appealed on a number of grounds.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in law by striking out the claim without more detailed analysis: whilst it was clear that the claims and issues had not been properly identified before the preliminary hearing to consider strike out or a deposit order, the ET failed to properly identify the claims and issues before considering strike out, and required the Claimant, as a litigant in person, to explain his claim orally, and limited its consideration of documentation to a letter written by the Claimant, without considering the background that the letter referred to, or the other detailed pleadings that the Claimant had submitted. Accordingly, the claim would be remitted to be determined by a fresh ET.