The Claimant made whitleblowing claims against the Respondent. This appeal concerned whether or not the EJ had made an order for standard disclosure against the Respondent. The Claimant maintained that the order had been made orally by the first EJ at a case management hearing but a second EJ ruled that no such order had been made, and if wrong about that, he would revoke it on the basis that it was not necessary or proportionate as there was a pending strike-out action which might substantially reduce the scope of the Respondent's disclosure obligations. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The EAT held that the nature and scope of any Orders made at a case management hearing must be identified from the written Order that is made following the hearing, rather than from anything that is said orally during the hearing.