The claimant brought claims of direct and indirect nationality and/or national origin discrimination after the respondent refused to grant him security clearance. An independent Security Vetting Appeals Panel (“SVAP”) subsequently recommended that refusal of clearance be maintained on national security grounds. The ET refused to strike out the claims but made a deposit order on the basis that they had little reasonable prospect of success. The claimant appealed against the deposit order and the respondent cross-appealed against the refusal to strike out.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as the ET had addressed the respondent’s case and had assessed the prospects of the national security proportionality defence. The claimant's appeal was also dismissed. The ET had not outsourced its assessment to SVAP: it had formed its own view while being entitled to take account of the specialist panel’s findings on national security. Nor was there any inconsistency in recognising that SVAP may not have applied precisely the same proportionality test as an ET while treating its factual findings and conclusions as highly relevant. Given the substantial national security considerations, and the limited impact of refusal of clearance on the Claimant, the ET had been entitled to conclude that the claims had little reasonable prospect of success.