EAT Protects Anonymity of Individual Named in Tribunal Proceedings
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has made an order to protect the anonymity of an individual who was the subject of salacious allegations in Tribunal proceedings.
Can the EAT Protect Public Disclosure of an Individual's Identity?
In the case of Pipenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Science, the claimant (Dr P), was employed as a fellow at the London School of Economics (the LSE) between 2011 and 2014. In November 2012, Dr P was teaching in the US. He was accompanied by Ms D, who had been a student of his and was also employed by the LSE. Ms D made a complaint of sexual harassment against Dr P, which he denied. Dr P in turn made a number of lurid allegations against Ms D. His main allegation was that she had sexually harassed and exposed herself to him while she was employed at the LSE.
Dr P was on long-term sick leave from December 2012 until his contract expired in 2014. The LSE did not renew his contract of employment. In early 2015, he brought claims against LSE for victimisation, discrimination arising from disability (anxiety and depression) and unfair dismissal. Dr P also brought a separate claim in the High Court.
In June 2022, the employment tribunal (ET) rejected all of Dr P's claims. It also found that his account of what happened in November 2012 was untrue, that Ms D made no sexual advances towards him and that his allegations were malicious. The ET said Dr P was not a reliable witness, demonstrated manipulative and dishonest behaviour and took an actively destructive approach to anyone who he thought had wronged him.
This EAT decision concerns an application by the LSE to prevent the public disclosure of the identity of Ms D. Ms D was not a party to the claim or a witness in the EAT proceedings, but she did give evidence for the LSE in the ET proceedings.
Anonymity and Engaging Article 8
The ET and the EAT are subject to two distinct sets of rules. The EAT did not have specific powers under the EAT rules to make an anonymity and/or restricted reporting order. However, the right to protection of a person's reputation is protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Being named in a judgment in connection with disreputable allegations, even if true, potentially engaged Article 8.
The EAT took into account Dr P's vendetta against Ms D, her relative youth and vulnerability, the fact the allegations against her had been proven to be untrue, and the trauma she had suffered. It held Ms D's Article 8 right to a private life was engaged. Dr P's right to a fair and public hearing, and the right to freedom of expression were not seriously impacted by the anonymisation order.
The Power of the EAT
This case highlights the power of the EAT to make an anonymity order or a restricted reporting order even where the EAT rules do not expressly grant that power.