Michael Clifford v Millicom Services UK Limited & Ors.

Michael Clifford v Millicom Services UK Limited & Ors.

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to separately and properly consider the interests of justice, the relevance of subjective fears, and the balancing of confidentiality against open justice. The evidence provided a sufficient objective basis for the fears expressed by the Millicom parties. The application for derogations must be remitted for redetermination by a differently constituted Employment Tribunal, considering the interests of justice, Article 8 rights, and confidentiality, and conducting a proper balancing exercise.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Clifford; First Defendant/respondent: Millicom Services UK Limited; Second Defendant/respondent: Martin Frechette; Third Defendant/respondent: Cara Viglucci; Fourth Defendant/respondent: HL Rogers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Employment Appeal Tribunal) / Judgment on Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; application remitted for redetermination
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Confidentiality, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Whistleblowing, Restricting Public Disclosure, Balancing Exercise, Derogations From Open Justice
Employment Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Confidentiality Article 8 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Whistleblowing +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Clifford

Claimant/appellant

Millicom Services UK Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Martin Frechette

Second Defendant/respondent

Cara Viglucci

Third Defendant/respondent

HL Rogers

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Employment Appeal Tribunal) / Judgment on Appeal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing derogations from open justice under Rule 50
  2. 2 Whether subjective fears for safety and confidentiality can justify restrictions on public disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal properly considered the interests of justice, Convention rights, and confidentiality

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to separately and properly consider the interests of justice, the relevance of subjective fears, and the balancing of confidentiality against open justice. The evidence provided a sufficient objective basis for the fears expressed by the Millicom parties. The application for derogations must be remitted for redetermination by a differently constituted Employment Tribunal, considering the interests of justice, Article 8 rights, and confidentiality, and conducting a proper balancing exercise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; application remitted for redetermination

Orders

  • Application for derogations from open justice remitted for redetermination by a differently constituted Employment Tribunal in accordance with the judgments of the EAT and Court of Appeal
  • Paragraph 3 of the EAT order to be amended to remove bracketed words as per Court of Appeal direction