EAT grants anonymity order in light of new mental health evidence
A recent case highlights how employment tribunals must balance the principle of open justice with the individual’s right to private life, particularly where mental health evidence is involved.
Background
In JK v Ealing Council, the claimant brought various employment claims following the end of her role as a social worker. She asked the tribunal and, later, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) not to publish her name in connection with the proceedings. Her initial application for anonymity was refused, partly because the medical evidence did not clearly explain the likely impact of publicity on her mental health.
The claimant later submitted fresh medical evidence, including reports from her GP and a clinical psychologist, stating that the lack of anonymity had already caused her mental health to deteriorate and that ongoing publication of her name would make things worse.
EAT decision
The EAT accepted that the new medical evidence tipped the balance. Although some details about her health had already entered the public domain through earlier tribunal proceedings, the evidence showed that further publicity, and specifically her name being published in the appeal, was likely to cause serious harm to her mental wellbeing.
In light of this, the EAT granted an anonymity order for the appeal proceedings. It also asked the employment tribunal to reconsider its earlier decision to refuse anonymity, based on the updated evidence.
Learning points for employers
This case highlights the careful balancing act tribunals must perform when considering anonymity requests. While open justice is a core principle, this can be outweighed in exceptional cases where disclosure would cause significant harm.
For employers, the key takeaway is that applications to restrict publicity should be supported by clear and persuasive evidence. Where an employee or former employee seeks anonymity based on the impact on their physical or mental health, strong and up-to-date medical evidence will be essential. General statements or unsupported concerns are unlikely to be enough.