Since February 2017 Employment Tribunal decisions have been available online. It is a valuable resource but it also gives rise to the risk of victimisation, reputational damage and invasion of privacy.
On 4 January 2019 the Employment Appeal Tribunal gave judgment in Ameyaw v Pricewaterhousecoopers Services Ltd UKEAT/0244/18.
The Employment Tribunal had made adverse findings about the Claimant’s conduct at a Preliminary Hearing. Subsequently, she applied for the judgment to be removed from the internet or for her name to be anonymised on the basis that her right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed. The application was refused and the Claimant appealed.
The EAT held that the Tribunal has no power to decide that a judgment or, other than in case of national security, the written reasons should not be publicly available.
In terms of anonymity, Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 gives the Tribunal discretion to prevent or restrict the public disclosure of any aspect of the proceedings if it is in the interests of justice or necessary to protect a person’s ECHR rights. The names of parties, witnesses or anyone mentioned can be anonymised or reporting can be restricted in respect of confidential information, sexual misconduct allegations, or evidence of a personal nature in a disability-related complaint.
Naturally, publicity may deter parties from seeking redress or running the risk of defending damaging allegations and losing. Unless there is clear and cogent evidence that harm will be done to the party seeking the restriction, the principle of open justice will not be outweighed.
In Ameyaw it was said that the Claimant could have no expectation of privacy about what took place during a public hearing, but even if Article 8 was engaged, it did not outweigh the principle of open justice. There had been no previous applications for anonymity and the application was made more than a year after judgment.
The publication of Tribunal decisions is something that both employees and employers have to contend with and ought to take into account when weighing up the risks of proceeding to a public hearing or even when deciding whether to request written reasons at its conclusion.
James Tunley / 28th Jan 2019
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.