EAT holds that tribunals must fully address the risk of jigsaw identification when making anonymity orders

Background

In LMN v Bradshaw and Others, the claimant brought sex discrimination and associative disability discrimination claims after the respondents declined her application for a tenancy at their chambers. The associative claim related to her child's disability.

The claimant, a barrister and part-time judge, used one surname personally and another professionally, and brought the claim in her personal name. She sought anonymity for both names, her practice details and her child's identity and disability, citing the risk of her child being identified and her own security, but provided no evidence of her security concerns. The respondents opposed anonymity for her but not for her child.

The tribunal refused anonymity for the claimant. It anonymised the child's name, medical condition and home region and, as the claimant also lived and wanted to work there, ordered that her location be described only as her "home region". The claimant appealed.

EAT decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the refusal of anonymity for the claimant in her own right. A party seeking anonymity must show, with clear and cogent evidence, that it is necessary. The tribunal was entitled to find that her privacy rights did not outweigh open justice. Judicial office gave her no special right to anonymity, and the tribunal could take into account that she chose to bring a claim she knew would be heard in public.

However, the EAT allowed the appeal on jigsaw identification: the risk that separate pieces of information can be combined to identify someone. The tribunal had not expressly decided whether the claimant's personal or professional names should be withheld to protect the child. It needed to, because the claim was issued in her personal name, which was connected to the child's identity, and her current professional name could lead to the child through a former professional surname.

Anonymising the child did not automatically require anonymising the claimant's names. As more than one answer was possible, the EAT remitted these questions to the same employment judge.

Learning points for employers

The burden is on the party seeking anonymity to show that it is necessary. Even so, before opposing an application, employers should consider what legitimate interest they are protecting and whether a narrower measure, such as partial anonymity or removing references to a child's medical condition, school or location, would meet the concern. This is best addressed early, before sensitive information appears in public tribunal documents.

Where a child's disability is in issue, there may be little reason to oppose anonymity for the child. Employers should also consider the combined effect of what is disclosed, as a parent's occupation, location or professional identity may reveal the child. As this case shows, using a parent's professional name may reduce that risk but will not always remove it.

For more information or advice, please get in touch with Khadija Khatun in our Employment team.