Guardian News and Media Ltd v Dimitri Rozanov and Others [2022] EAT 12

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeJudge Tayler
Neutral Citation[2022] EAT 12
Subject MatterNot landmark
CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
Published date22 March 2022
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Guardian News & Media Limited v Rozanov and others
Page 1 [2022] EAT 12
© EAT 2022
Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EAT 12
Case No: EA-2020-000185-DA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 22 March 2022
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
GUARDIAN NEWS & MEDIA LIMITED Appellant
(Applicant below)
- and -
Respondents
(1) DMITRI ROZANOV (Claimant below)
(2) EFG PRIVATE BANK LIMITED (Respondent below)
MEDIA LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Intervenor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GREG CALLUS (instructed by Guardian News & Media) for the Appellant
JAMES GOUDIE QC (instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) for the 2nd Respondent
Hearing date: 16 February 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Guardian News & Media Limited v Rozanov and others
Page 2 [2022] EAT 12
© EAT 2022
SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
The employment tribunal erred in law in refusing to order EFG Bank to provide copies of skeleton
arguments, witness statements and documents referred to in a judgement of the employment tribunal
to the Guardian when a journalist sought the documents relatively shortly after the judgment had been
sent to the parties. In the unusual circumstances of this case an order requiring the provision of the
documents was substituted for the decision of the employment tribunal.
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Guardian News & Media Limited v Rozanov and others
Page 3 [2022] EAT 12
© EAT 2022
His Honour Judge James Tayler
Introduction
1. This is an appeal brought by Guardian News & Media Limited (“GNM”) against a decision
of the employment tribunal refusing an application, made subsequent to a final hearing (“the final
hearing”), seeking an order that the 2nd Respondent, EFG Private Bank Limited (“EFG”), provide
GNM with copies of documents put before the employment tribunal at the final hearing; specifically:
the ET1 claim form, ET3 response, skeleton arguments, witness statements and documents from the
bundle.
The original employment tribunal proceedings
2. The claimant, Mr Rozanov, was employed by EFG, a private bank, as UK Market Co-
ordinator for Russia, Eastern Europe and the CIS countries. The claimant brought proceedings in the
employment tribunal claiming that he had been subject to detriment by EFG done on the grounds that
he had made protected disclosures; and that he was dismissed for the reason, or principal reason, that
he had made protected disclosures. The claim was heard at London Central, EJ Lewis and members,
from 25 to 28 June, 2 and 3 July and was considered in chambers on 1 and 2 October 2018. The
judgment was sent to the parties on 5 October 2018.
3. The claimant asserted that he had made a number of protected disclosures in relation to
compliance generally, and alleging failure to comply with regulatory requirements in respect of a
number of specific transactions. At the employment tribunal hearing material was redacted to remove
the names of clients of EFG and an anonymity order was made pursuant to Rule 50 of the Employment
Tribunal Rules 2013 (“ET Rules”):
Anonymity and redaction: rule 50
3. The parties agreed that the names of Bank clients should be redacted. The respondent made a
rule 50 application additionally to redact the names of four individuals and to keep a ‘confidential
annexe’ ie a small bundle of three articles.
4. Three of the four names were ‘Individual 2’; ‘relative 19’ and ‘relative 20’. They are from one
family. They paid in funds in relation to one of the clients whose names has been redacted. The
tribunal agreed to the redaction of the names of the additional three individuals. It was a
transaction which would come under close scrutiny as it is the subject of alleged protected
disclosures. There was a risk that the identity of that client could be identified were the names

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Brid Angela Gallagher v Donal John Gallagher
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Court
    • 13 Junio 2022
    ...can be found in the judgment of HHJ Tayler in Guardian News & Media Ltd v Rozanov & Anor (Practice and Procedure — Tribunal Erred In Law) [2022] EAT 12 3 These respectively provided (1) that proceedings about children should be heard in chambers; and (2) that in such proceedings any documen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT