f_gEAT2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Restricted reporting/permanent anonymity order
Claims of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal by a care assistant at a further education college with residential facilities for severely disabled students – Judge makes both a restricted reporting order under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and a ‘permanent anonymity order’ under rule 49 in order to prevent publication of intimate details of facilities provided to disabled students under the College’s Relationships and Sexuality Policy – Order under rule 49 anonymises not only individual students named in the case but also the parties – Claimant appeals against the permanent anonymity order
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) The Judge was wrong to make an order under rule 49, since the case did not involve allegations of the commission of a sexual offence. But:
(2) Notwithstanding the importance of open justice, a permanent anonymity order was in the particular circumstances of the case appropriate under the wider powers recognised in A v B [2010] ICR 849, in order to protect the article 8 rights of the group of students and staff affected by the relevant aspects of the Policy
Discussion of relationship of rules 49 and 50 and the wider jurisdiction recognised in A v B and X v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2003] ICR 1031
Underhill P
[2011] UKEAT 0042 – 11 – 2109
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.444950