Z v 1) Commerzbank AG 2) Mr Lars Vogelmann 3) Ms Hope Jackson 4) Mr Gary Booth 5) Ms Yogita Mehta 6) Q
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Kerr |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 12 February 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Z v. Commerzbank AG et al
© EAT 2024 Page 1 [2024] EAT 11
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 11 Case No: EA-2022-000216-AT
EA-2022-000797-AT
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 12 February 2024
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KERR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Z (in accordance with anonymity order)
Appellant
(Claimant below)
- and –
(1) COMMERZBANK AG
(2) MR LARS VOGELMANN
(3) MS HOPE JACKSON
(4) MR GARY BOOTH
(5) MS YOGITA MEHTA
(6) Q (in accordance with anonymity order) Respondents
(Respondents below)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Ross Beaton (instructed by Advocate) appeared for the Appellant
Ms Claire McCann (instructed by GQ Littler) appeared for the Respondents
Hearing date: 23 January 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Z v. Commerzbank AG et al
© EAT 2024 Page 2 [2024] EAT 11
SUMMARY
Anonymity; holiday pay; costs in employment tribunal; costs in the appeal
The tribunal had correctly and lawfully decided to revoke orders (i) requiring the appellant (the
claimant below) to remain anonymous and (ii) imposing reporting restrictions preventing the
disclosure of his identity, after his evidence was found to be false and his claims dismissed.
Neither the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 nor article 6 or 8 of the European Convention
on Human Rights entitled the claimant to continuing anonymity.
The tribunal had been entitled to dismiss his claim for outstanding holiday pay.
The tribunal was justified in making an order that the claimant pay a contribution to the respondents’
costs of £20,000.
The appeal therefore failed on all grounds.
The claimant’s conduct of the appeal had been unreasonable in three respects. He was ordered to pay
a contribution of £5,362 towards the respondents’ costs.
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Z v. Commerzbank AG et al
© EAT 2024 Page 3 [2024] EAT 11
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KERR:
Introduction
1. This appeal proceeds on three miscellaneous grounds following unsuccessful claims by the
appellant “Mr Z”, the claimant below, determined in the London Central Employment Tribunal in
2021 and 2022. The claims were mainly for various kinds of discrimination. The tribunal disbelieved
the claimant’s evidence and dismissed all the claims. The first point of appeal challenges the decision
to revoke two orders protecting the claimant’s identity. The second point is whether the tribunal was
wrong to dismiss his claim for outstanding holiday pay. The third is whether the tribunal was justified
in ordering the claimant to pay a contribution of £20,000 towards the respondents’ costs.
2. Numerous procedural steps were taken, mainly by the claimant, in the weeks and months
leading up to the hearing of this appeal. I do not yet need to go into the details save to say that I reject
the claimant’s application (not supported by Mr Beaton) to rely on a statement from a Mr Olayinka
Taiwo about holiday pay. That evidence could have been deployed before the tribunal below and
does not affect any of the existing grounds of appeal; it would require permission to raise a new
ground in support of the holiday pay claim, which would be wholly inappropriate at such a late stage.
3. The reserved decision dismissing all the claims came after a hearing from 19-27 October 2021
before Employment Judge Snelson, sitting with Ms C. Ihnatowicz and Mr D. Clay, sent to the parties
on 14 February 2022 (with minor slip rule corrections on 27 May 2022). That included rejection of
the holiday pay claim, the subject of the second issue in this appeal. The subsequent decision on
consequential matters, giving rise to the first and third points of appeal, was made following a further
hearing on 26 May 2022 before the same tribunal, followed by a reserved decision dated 5 July 2022.
Facts
4. On 1 May 2019, the claimant, a black British man of Nigerian heritage, started working for
the first respondent bank (the bank) as a “know your client” analyst. His employment did not go
smoothly but he managed to pass his accreditation process at the second attempt and to pass his
probation.
5. The claimant became discontent with colleagues and his employer on several counts. He
alleged discrimination against the bank and various individual respondents including, as he later
alleged, sexual harassment and an alleged sexual assault on him in or about October 2019 by the sixth
respondent, Ms Q (as she remains pursuant to an anonymity order challenged by no one). He had
To continue reading
Request your trial