The Claimant, who was employed by the Respondent, complained of bullying by colleagues at work, and alleged that a number of detriments were caused by a protected act (namely the lodging of her grievance alleging sex-based bullying behaviour), giving rise to the actions of the HR manager regarding her employment and, ultimately, her dismissal. Before the ET, the Claimant contended that each of the separate detriments was caused by the protected act, while the Respondent contended that the detriments were a continuation of conduct previously complained about, and so resulted from a multiplicity of causes. The ET concluded that the Claimant's claim had little reasonable prospect of success and that it was appropriate to make a deposit order. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT held that the ET's decision could not stand, since there was clearly a factual dispute on a fundamental issue in considering the claim of victimisation, which could not be resolved without hearing evidence on either side and the ET making findings of fact on the cause of the detriments relied on. The order for payment of the deposit would be set aside, and the hearing of the complaint of victimisation and of unfair dismissal should be heard by a fresh ET.