EAT emphasises fairness when dealing with post-hearing anonymity applications
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a claimant seeking anonymity must be given a fair opportunity to provide supporting evidence, particularly where mental health is involved.
Background
In the case of DBP v Scottish Ambulance Service, the claimant brought several employment claims which were all dismissed after a full hearing. The published tribunal judgment included details of her evidence about previous self-harming and a suicide attempt. Over a year later, having since become a mother, she applied for her name to be anonymised in the public record. She explained that she was concerned about the ongoing availability of the judgment online, which she said created a risk of further self-harming or suicidal thoughts.
She told the tribunal that she was willing to fund an expert psychological report to assess the level of risk and asked for an oral hearing to explain her situation. The tribunal, however, refused her application on the papers, deciding that because she had not yet provided medical evidence, there was no basis to grant anonymity.
Decision
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that this approach was unfair. The claimant had made clear that she intended to obtain medical evidence and was taking steps to fund it, even offering to sell her car to pay for the report. In those circumstances, it was wrong for the tribunal to reject her application outright rather than give her time to provide the evidence.
The EAT said that fairness required the claimant to be given a reasonable opportunity to gather and present medical evidence before any decision was made. It was “plainly wrong” to refuse her application on the basis that she had not yet obtained the report she was seeking to commission. The case was therefore sent back to be reconsidered by a different judge, and a temporary anonymity order was made in the meantime.
Learning points for employers
Although this case focused on procedural fairness, it highlights an increasing trend for individuals to apply for anonymity after their cases have concluded, particularly in light of tribunal judgments being permanently available online. The principle of open justice remains important, but tribunals are increasingly asked to balance it against genuine risks to a person’s mental health or safety.
For employers, the case is a reminder to approach post-hearing requests for anonymity with understanding, particularly where sensitive personal information has been disclosed during proceedings. Where former employees raise privacy or wellbeing concerns after litigation, a measured and empathetic response can help avoid unnecessary conflict and protect the organisation’s reputation. Employers should also be aware that tribunals may be more inclined to permit anonymity where there is credible evidence of risk to health or welfare, even after a case has ended.