Amin v Manchester Airport Group: EAT upholds strike-out after deposit order non-payment

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by a former aviation security officer whose claims were struck out following his failure to comply with deposit orders, in a case that also tested the boundaries of apparent bias arising from a judge's written reasons.

In H Amin v Manchester Airports Group PLC & Francesca Abbott [2026] EAT 63, Judge Stout upheld the Manchester Employment Tribunal's January 2024 decision, finding no error of law in the refusal of relief from sanctions, the rejection of a postponement application, or the conduct and tone of the proceedings below.

Mr Amin, employed by Manchester Airports Group from 1993 as an aviation security officer, had brought claims of unfair constructive dismissal, race and disability discrimination, and associated payments following the termination of his employment in November 2021. Deposit orders were made against him in May 2023 and were not paid by the stipulated deadline. When the matter came before Employment Judge Holmes in January 2024, Mr Amin was absent, having reportedly travelled to Pakistan in connection with his father's health. He was represented at that hearing by Mr Broomhead, described as a non-practising solicitor.

Mr Broomhead accepted at the hearing that the claims stood struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunal Rules by reason of non-payment. The claimant had been specifically ordered to attend and produce original documentary evidence in support of his contention that the deposits had in fact been paid; he did neither. With no claimant present to give evidence, Mr Broomhead sought a postponement rather than pressing a substantive application for relief from sanctions. That application was refused, and the claims were formally struck out.

On appeal, two grounds had been granted permission. The first alleged that the Employment Judge erred by failing to consider whether the default had been deliberate and persistent, or had rendered a fair trial impossible, citing the approach set out in Thind v Salvesen Logistics Limited [2010] and the Court of Appeal's earlier guidance in Neary. Judge Stout rejected this, finding that no substantive application for relief from sanctions had ever been advanced. Once the postponement was refused, there was no live application left to consider. The reasons given by the Employment Judge were adequate in the circumstances.

The second ground concerned allegations of apparent bias, centred on the tone of the Employment Judge's written reasons. The claimant contended that references to Mr Broomhead's "prevarication", the observation that he "did not press" the recusal application further, the recording of Mr Broomhead's health at the close of the hearing, and passages touching on a possible costs application collectively disclosed an "animus" towards his representative.

Applying the familiar Porter v Magill test, Judge Stout found that the threshold for apparent bias was not met. The description of "prevarication" was not inappropriate given that Mr Broomhead had initially maintained the deposits were paid before conceding the point. The notation that the recusal application was not pressed was an accurate and unremarkable record of events. The reference to Mr Broomhead's health was, if anything, indicative of a compassionate approach. The costs passage was standard judicial housekeeping, prompted by the respondent having raised the issue, and could not fairly be read as encouragement to pursue an application.

Judge Stout also noted, having considered each complaint individually, that the cumulative picture was no more troubling than its constituent parts. A fair-minded and informed observer reading the reasons objectively would not conclude there was any real possibility of unfairness.

The appeal was dismissed. Mr Amin did not attend the final EAT hearing; his long-standing representative had died in December 2025, and he cited his own ill health and his father's hospitalisation. Judge Stout, while expressing sympathy, was satisfied the claimant had been given adequate guidance on seeking a postponement and had not done so.