F v J
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EAT 92 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
2023 June 1
Judge
Industrial relations - Employment tribunals - Order for anonymity - Claimant having hidden disability only disclosed to respondent employer - Claimant applying for anonymity order on ground employability otherwise destroyed - Whether balance in favour of open justice -
The claimant was a university lecturer who had autism spectrum disorder and suffered from anxiety and major depressive disorder. He brought multiple complaints of disability discrimination against his employer, acting as a litigant in person. At a preliminary hearing, the claimant relied on his right to respect for his private and family life in article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and applied for an anonymity order, pursuant to rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, claiming that he had a hidden disability which he had only disclosed to the respondent. The claimant said that he believed that his employability would be destroyed without anonymity and that there was no public interest in his name being in the public domain. The judge found that the claimant had “chosen to air his grievances in a public forum” and that, balancing open justice against the claimant’s rights, the balance fell in favour of open justice and he refused the application. The claimant appealed.
The claimant in person; Akua Reindorf KC (instructed by
JUDGE AUERBACH, allowing the appeal, said that the existence of an employment tribunal claim did not automatically enter the public domain by virtue of it being presented as such, still less the contents. As and when there was a hearing, essential details, including the parties’ names, would be published on the tribunal’s hearing list, but not substantive details of the contents of the claim itself. Subject to any order the tribunal made under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the position would change as and when there was a public hearing. However, case management hearings in the employment tribunal were, as this one was, ordinarily conducted in private. The judge appeared to have proceeded on the basis that the fact of the claim having been presented itself caused it to pass into the public...
To continue reading
Request your trial