F v G (Practice and Procedure : Restricted Reporting Order)

Where anonymity and restricted reporting orders engage ECHR Articles 8 and 10, the tribunal must conduct a balancing exercise. Protection of the Article 8 rights of highly vulnerable persons may justify continuing restrictions after a claimant has succeeded and received compensation.

The order must protect legitimate privacy interests, rather than shield an employer from embarrassment. A challenge based on alleged factual errors does not disclose an error of law for the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Disclosure of related material to a third party does not, without more, require reporting restrictions to be lifted.

The Claimant had succeeded before the Birmingham Employment Tribunal in claims of sex discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal arising from events in 2009. Following earlier directions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Tribunal continued anonymity and reporting restrictions to protect vulnerable students, staff and the Respondent college.

Employment Judge Findlay continued the restrictions by an order sent on 14 March 2012. The Claimant and her representative appealed, contending that the restrictions were unfair, prevented public discussion of the Respondent's practices, and had been undermined by disclosure of policy material to an outside organisation.

After obtaining the Employment Judge's written reasons, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether the continuing order involved an error of law in the balancing of Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.

1. The rule 3(10) application and the underlying appeal were dismissed. The Employment Judge's continuing anonymity and restricted reporting order remained in force.

2. The Employment Judge had correctly treated the matter as engaging Article 8 of the ECHR and had undertaken the required balance between privacy rights and Article 10 freedom of expression. The balance properly favoured anonymity for vulnerable students, staff and the college. The order was not made to spare the Respondent embarrassment following the Claimant's successful claims.

3. The Claimant's success on the merits and receipt of substantial compensation vindicated her employment rights. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the proposed public discussion went beyond that vindication and was directed towards a wider public inquiry into the Respondent's practices.

4. The Employment Judge had considered the alleged disclosure of policy material to SHADA. She was entitled to find material differences between that material and the Respondent's policy, and to conclude that SHADA's involvement did not favour lifting the restrictions.

5. Complaints that the Employment Judge had made factual errors raised questions of fact, not questions of law for the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Article 12 of the ECHR was irrelevant because the case did not concern a right to marry.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The rule 3(10) application and appeal against the continuing reporting restrictions were dismissed.

• Employment Tribunal, Birmingham: Employment Judge Findlay, sitting alone, continued the restriction on publication by an order sent on 14 March 2012.

• Earlier Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings: The Tribunal had previously continued anonymity orders and dismissed challenges concerning the publication of identifying material.

• Employment Tribunal, Birmingham: The Claimant's sex discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal claims succeeded. Compensation exceeding £75,000 was later awarded.