EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Restricted reporting order
Restricted Reporting Order relating to allegations of sexual misconduct – Whether Tribunal entitled to vary order in order to permit naming of Claimants against the objection of the alleged perpetrators.
Held:
(a) that there were sufficient grounds to justify reconsideration by the Tribunal, notwithstanding a previous order prohibiting the naming of the Claimants – Hart v English Heritage [2006] ICR 655 considered;
(b) that it was in principle open to the Tribunal to prohibit the naming of the Claimants on the basis that their identification would necessarily constitute ‘identifying matter’ as regards the alleged perpetrators – R v London North Industrial Tribunal, ex p. Associated Newspapers Ltd [1998] ICR 1212 considered; but
(c) that on the facts of the case it was not established that the identification of the Claimants would necessarily constitute identifying matter.
Observations on the meaning of ‘likely’ and ‘members of the public’ in s. 11 (6) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 1415 – 08 – 1011
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Tribunals Act 1996 11(6)
Citing:
Cited – Regina v London North Industrial Tribunal, ex parte Associated Newspapers Ltd 1998
An Employment Tribunal considering applying the rule allowing a restriction on reporting a case, must have regard to the legislative purpose and also to the importance of the principles of freedom of the press and open justice. . .
Cited – Hart v English Heritage (Historic Buildings and Monuments Commision for England) EAT 7-Feb-2006
EAT Leave to amend claim to include certain unfair dismissal complaints rejected by Tribunal Chairman. Attempt made before another Chairman to contend that the amendment should be permitted because it merely gave . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Media
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278351
