The Claimant, an actress, brought various claims against the Respondents, including for direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of her religion and/or religious beliefs. The ET fixed a date for a final hearing and made two case management decisions against which the Claimant appealed, namely that (1) it ordered the final hearing to take place in person and refused the Claimant's application that it be conducted remotely, and (2) it refused the Claimant's application to admit the evidence of two experts. Both appeals failed to pass the paper sift under rule 3(7) of the EAT Rules, and further appeals were brought under rule 3(10).

The EAT held that both decisions were within the ET's discretion; accordingly, the Claimant's application under rule 3(10) of the EAT Rules for the appeal to proceed would be refused.