The ET struck-out some of the Claimant's claims but refused to strike-out others. The appeal was brought by the Respondent on the grounds that the ERT's reasons were not compliant with the requirements of Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250 CA or the Rules of Procedure, and failed to explain why all of the Claimant's claims were not struck-out.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The judgment failed to meet the requirements of Rule 62(5) and was not compliant with the decision in Meek.