The ET, when considering background matters pleaded in a discrimination claim, came to the conclusion that there was insufficient relevance of the background to the substantive complaints. He said that those matters (which allegedly happened between 2010 and 2019) should have been brought as specific Tribunal complaints against the relevant people at the relevant time and it was not in accordance with the overriding objective for such matters to be considered as purported background. The EJ, in dealing with the issue of the deposit order, concluded that there was little prospect of the Claimant being able to (a) show the claim was in time (b) that the Claimant could establish it was just and equitable to extend time on that complaint. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal in relation to the background matters, saying that the EJ had considered the issue of relevance and the decision was one he could properly reach. The appeal in relation to the deposit was allowed. The EJ did not have a proper basis to conclude that there was little reasonable prospect of success. In any event the judgment did not give reasons for the decision and was not Meek compliant.