The EAT was invited by the Respondent LSE to make an order to protect the identity of Ms D, a young woman about whom the Appellant had made lurid allegations which the employment tribunal had found to be untrue.
The EAT found that Ms D’s Art 8 rights were engaged and that the Appellant’s intentions in relation to publicizing his allegations were against the interests of justice. Balancing these matters against the principle of open justice and the Appellant’s Art 6 rights and the right of freedom of expression of the Appellant and others, the balance came down firmly in favour of the former and it was appropriate and necessary to make an order.
Given the Appellant’s intentions it would not be sufficient simply to anonymize Ms D in the EAT judgment; it would also be necessary to control public access to documents lodged with the EAT and to make an order preventing any disclosure of Ms D’s identity. It was also necessary to make the order indefinite (though subject to a right to apply to revoke or vary it).
Citations:
[2022] EAT 119
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.680327