A -v- Choice Support (Formerly MCCH Ltd) and EA (Intervenor) [2023] EAT 18
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Beard |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 17 February 2023 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down A v Choice Support
© EAT 2023 Page 1 [2023] EAT 18
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 18
Case No: EA-2021-000724-LA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 16 February 2023
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WAYNE BEARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
A Appellant
- and –
CHOICE SUPPORT (FORMERLY MCCH LTD) Respondent
-and-
EA Intervenor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emma Sole (instructed by Employment Law 4U) for the Appellant
Stephen Wyeth (instructed by DAS Law) for the Respondent
Hilary Winstone (instructed by Girlings Solicitors LLP) for the Intervenor
Hearing date: 18 October 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down A v Choice Support
© EAT 2023 Page 2 [2023] EAT 18
SUMMARY
An employment tribunal considering whether to order anonymity and/or restricted reporting should
have the distinctions between section 11(1)(a) and (b) Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the
broader powers contained within rule 50 in mind. It is suggested that orders should clearly delineate
under which of the powers under rule 50 (which encompasses section 11) the order was made. A
restricted reporting order which specifically prohibits publication of the details of a case should only
be made permanent when a less restrictive order would not suffice.
The EAT when considering whether or not to make an order under rule 23 of the EAT rules should
have in mind any order made by an Employment Tribunal, however that is only one element of
consideration.
To continue reading
Request your trial