The Claimant was employed as an Immigration Officer. He lost his job after his security clearance was withdrawn. He claimed that this was because of sex discrimination. The Respondent denied that and asserted that there were national security reasons, which were not shared with the Claimant. The ET ordered the closed procedure to apply, and Special Advocates were appointed for him. At a subsequent hearing, at which the Special Advocates appeared, the ET ruled that the Claimant should be provided with a proposed gist of the Respondent’s defence. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET had erred in allowing the proposed gist of the response to be disclosed to the Claimant. This decision considers the correct legal test and approach to be applied by the ET to such an application in a case of this type.