The Claimant was demoted and asked to work at a different branch after an investigation into the way she dealt with the disposal of a server. She contacted her union prior to submitting her ET1. The Respondent then requested an order for specific disclosure of relevant documents within the Claimant's control, specifically any and all correspondence (including emails), memos, meeting/interview notes or any other documents shared between the Claimant and her Union representatives, TSBU, on the basis that these documents may have contained relevant information to this case. The order was subsequently made and the Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The EJ had erred by ordering the disclosure of the documents. Given the confidential nature of such correspondence, albeit not privileged, a Tribunal ought ordinarily to carry out an inspection of the documents said potentially to be disclosable and should test each against the principles set out in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Beck [2009] IRLR 740, itself derived from Nassé v Science Research Council [1979] IRLR 465, namely whether a document is not only relevant but also necessary for fairly disposing of the proceedings.