EAT upholds refusal to lift anonymisation orders

Background

Employment tribunals have the power, in specific situations, to restrict the disclosure of information in order to shield individuals involved in proceedings. This may involve anonymising the names or identifying features of parties, or placing limits on the reporting of particular aspects of a case. These orders are exceptional and will only be made where the reasons for confidentiality clearly outweigh the strong principle of open justice.

In the case of A v (1) Organisation (2) C (3) D, the Tribunal made a permanent restricted reporting and anonymisation order at an early stage to protect the identities of the respondents. The claimant later sought to have the order revoked or varied, arguing that any risks had diminished and that continued anonymity was no longer justified. The Tribunal rejected his application, and the EAT has now upheld that decision.

The EAT’s decision

The EAT confirmed that anonymity and reporting restrictions are case management decisions. When such an order is made, the Tribunal will already have balanced open justice against the privacy and safety considerations advanced at the time. A party cannot simply ask for that balancing exercise to be repeated; there must be a genuine, material change in circumstances supported by clear evidence.

The fact that the claims had been settled did not assist the claimant. The EAT observed that settlement may reduce the relevance of open justice considerations, since there will be no final hearing at which the issues would otherwise be examined. The Tribunal had also been entitled to extend the existing anonymisation order to a later related claim, as the same underlying risks continued to apply.

Learning points for employers

This decision highlights that anonymity and reporting restrictions, once granted, are likely to remain in place unless there is compelling evidence that circumstances have shifted in a meaningful way. For employers, this provides reassurance that protections put in place to safeguard individuals or sensitive matters will not be easily disturbed. It also illustrates the value of setting out clear and persuasive reasons when seeking such orders at the outset, as the Tribunal’s initial assessment will continue to carry significant weight if the order is later challenged.

For more information or advice, please contact Matt Verrier in our Employment team.