The claimant was a litigant in person and is disabled because he has hearing loss in one ear. The proceedings, over CVP, involved several applications and delays culminating in one for postponement so the claimant could receive written reasons for refusal of a privacy order. The hearing was postponed after the claimant could not rejoin the hearing through technical problems but the tribunal issued an Unless Order requesting a written statement explaining why the claimant could not rejoin the hearing. The judge, acting alone, decided the order had not been complied with even though the claimant had responded.

HHJ Tucker allows the appeal broadly because the judge had erred in making a qualitative assessment of the explanation where the wording of the order had been at least ambiguous. An explanation had been provided and the order 'only required him to provide an explanation, not to provide one to a particular standard, nor a valid explanation.'