L v Q Ltd

Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 permits necessary restrictions, including anonymisation and redaction, but it does not ordinarily permit an Employment Tribunal to withhold its judgment from the public Register altogether. The non-exhaustive wording of the rule cannot displace the fundamental principle of open justice or the registration requirement in Rule 67.

Outside national-security cases, a complete and indefinite restriction would be exceptionally difficult to justify. A claimant’s privacy interests, including those arising from disability, do not justify redacting the disabilities and their effects where that would fundamentally impair public understanding of the judgment. Redactions should instead be confined to what is reasonably necessary to preserve anonymity.

The claimant brought disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against his employer in the Employment Tribunal. Shortly before the hearing, the tribunal ordered a private hearing, anonymisation of the parties and witnesses, and that its judgment should not be entered on the Register.

On the employer’s appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld anonymisation but set aside the non-registration order. It directed publication of the Employment Tribunal judgment subject to redactions necessary to preserve anonymity: UKEAT/0209/18/BA.

The claimant sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Employment Tribunal judgment should enter the Register and, if so, whether the claimant’s disabilities, their consequences and an embarrassing incident should receive further redaction.

1. Permission to appeal was refused. The court upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s order requiring the Employment Tribunal judgment to be entered on the Register, subject to properly limited anonymisation and redaction.

2. The statutory scheme distinguishes national-security cases from other cases. Regulation 14 and Rule 67 require judgments and written reasons to be entered on the Register, subject to Rules 50 and 94. Rule 94 concerns national security. Rule 50 permits measures necessary for justice or Convention rights, including anonymisation and redaction, but does not expressly authorise the permanent suppression of a judgment.

3. Rule 50 had to be construed consistently with open justice and freedom of expression. The court applied the analysis in Ameyaw v PriceWaterhouseCoopers Services Ltd UKEAT/0244/18/LA and followed the fundamental open-justice principles reaffirmed in R (C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] 1 WLR 444. The claimant’s proposed construction would enable a person who feared embarrassment to secure both a private hearing and a secret judgment. That result was inconsistent with those principles.

4. The court did not decide that total non-publication could never be justified outside national-security cases. It held, however, that this was plainly not such a case. The Employment Tribunal’s inadequate reasons and the claimant’s anxiety about publication could not justify withholding the judgment altogether.

5. Further redaction of the claimant’s disabilities and their consequences was refused. Those matters formed the foundation of the claims, and their removal would fundamentally undermine understanding of the Employment Tribunal judgment. The remote risk of further embarrassment did not justify censorship beyond anonymising individuals and making redactions reasonably necessary to preserve their anonymity. Job titles of persons in the claimant’s team could be redacted where appropriate.

6. The parties were directed to submit proposed redactions to the Employment Judge within 14 days. The judgment was then to be entered on the Register as soon as practicable. Lady Justice Rose agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Permission to appeal was refused. The court upheld publication of the Employment Tribunal judgment on the Register, subject only to redactions necessary to preserve anonymity: [2019] EWCA Civ 1417.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal. Slade J upheld the anonymisation orders but set aside the direction that the Employment Tribunal judgment should not be entered on the Register. She allowed one substantive appeal ground and remitted the reasonable-adjustments claim: UKEAT/0209/18/BA.
• Employment Tribunal. The tribunal upheld some discrimination claims and dismissed others. It ordered a private hearing, anonymisation, and non-registration of its judgment.