The proceedings had a long history. The initial claim form was 'excessively long' and backed by 200 pages of documents. Since then the matter had been 'subject to extensive case management by a number of very experienced employment judges' who tried to identify the issues. The respondent had engaged with the proceedings but applied to strike out the claims before EJ Balogun, who struck out some and made a single allegation of direct discrimination and harassment subject to a deposit order. The claimant appealed.

In this judgment HHJ Tayler notes at [12] that it was 'a little troubling ….. there was no consideration of the case law about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to strike out claims, or issue deposit orders". He then proceeds to review the relevant case law on strike out and analyses the decision making around the allegation made subject to the deposit order. He concludes, broadly, the judge had erred in striking out some of the allegations as they had to be considered in the context of the allegations that were permitted to proceed [27]. On the deposit order, although described as finely balanced, HHJ Tayler concludes the employment judge erred in making a deposit order in respect of a single allegation as there was a sequence of events set out in the further particulars that required consideration at a full hearing.