The Appellant, who at all material times was employed by the Respondent, brought a number of claims in the ET, including for a range of alleged breaches of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. The Respondent lodged a comprehensive response, which the Appellant sought to have struck out on the basis that it was scandalous, vexatious and without reasonable prospect of success. The ET directed that the Appellant's strike-out application would be decided on the basis of written submissions, but the Appellant contended that his application should be considered at a hearing in public. The ET refused to vary its original direction, and the Appellant appealed on various grounds, including that the ET erred in law in deciding that it had jurisdiction (a) to exclude the public from a hearing that must take place in person, (b) to refuse a public hearing in respect of a strike-out matter, and (c) to refuse the Appellant, as a litigant in person, a hearing in public.

The EAT held that the ET did not err in law and, accordingly, all of the appeals failed and would be refused.