X v Y

It is not enough that sensitive material appears in evidence; tribunals must consider anonymisation where Article 8 rights arise. Anonymisation may be ordered by the ET of its own motion in rare cases where the tribunal is or should be aware of acute privacy risks. Redaction of reasons is a disproportionate response in almost all cases because it would distort the public record and offend open justice. Rule 50 may be invoked after a judgment is sent and is not time‑barred; the appropriate remedy is normally anonymisation rather than editing or deleting reasons.

The appellant brought employment claims that succeeded on unpaid wages and holiday pay. The ET Judgment referred to the appellant's transgender status and sensitive mental health material after evidence was given by his father, who represented him. No Rule 50 application was made at the hearing. The appellant sought deletion of passages and anonymisation after the judgment. The EAT was asked to decide whether the ET erred by referring to the material, whether anonymisation or redaction was appropriate, and whether an application under Rule 50 could be made after judgment.

1. Disposition: Appeal allowed. The ET was plainly wrong to fail to consider anonymisation of its own motion in this case; the EAT ordered anonymisation of both ET and EAT records and permitted limited redaction for enforcement purposes (see paras [42]; [53]).

2. The ET did not err in treating the factual evidence summarised in the Reasons as relevant to the time‑limit issue. Those findings were properly based on witness evidence (see paras [30]–[33]).

3. A tribunal may, in rare cases, be obliged to consider making a Rule 50 non‑disclosure/anonymity order of its own initiative when the tribunal is aware of acute privacy risks (see paras [36]–[38]).

4. Redaction or deletion of parts of Reasons is ordinarily disproportionate because it would falsify the public record and undermine open justice. Anonymisation is the less intrusive and ordinarily sufficient remedy (see paras [34]–[35]).

5. An application under Rule 50 can be made after a judgment has been sent. The tribunal is not necessarily functus and may consider such an application; the EAT may substitute an order where the only possible outcome was anonymisation (see paras [44]–[47]).

6. The EAT will only remit to the ET where other outcomes were reasonably open. Remittal is unnecessary where the appellate court is satisfied that the only possible outcome would have been a particular order (see paras [38]–[39]).

7. Practical order: the ET and EAT records were anonymised; the respondent's name anonymised to avoid indirect identification; for County Court enforcement the appellant may supply only the operative part of the ET judgment (paras [50]–[53]).

• Employment Appeal Tribunal (Cavanagh J): Allowed the appeal; ordered anonymisation of ET and EAT records and limited provision of operative part for County Court enforcement (see paras [53]).
• Employment Tribunal (Harper EJ): First instance judgment recorded findings about transgender status and mental health and allowed wages/holiday claim to proceed; declined post‑judgment request to redact (see paras [2]; [12]).