L v Q Ltd

L v Q Ltd

There is no power under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 or the ET Rules (other than for national security cases) to withhold publication of judgments from the Register. Anonymisation and redaction are permitted only to the extent reasonably necessary to preserve anonymity, not to censor substantive details such as disabilities or incidents forming the basis of the claim. The principle of open justice prevails, and the Claimant's Article 8 rights do not justify further restriction or redaction beyond anonymisation.

Parties
Appellant: L; Respondent: Q Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Determination of Publication/redaction Orders
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused regarding publication and further redaction orders; costs awarded to Respondent.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Open Justice, Anonymisation, Restricted Reporting, Privacy in Judicial Proceedings
Employment Law Discrimination Law Human Rights Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Open Justice Anonymisation Restricted Reporting +1 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Appellant

Q Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Determination of Publication/redaction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal judgment should be published on the Register
  2. 2 Whether further redaction to anonymise disabilities and incidents is required
  3. 3 Scope of Employment Tribunal's discretion under Rule 50 regarding privacy and publication

Ratio Decidendi

There is no power under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 or the ET Rules (other than for national security cases) to withhold publication of judgments from the Register. Anonymisation and redaction are permitted only to the extent reasonably necessary to preserve anonymity, not to censor substantive details such as disabilities or incidents forming the basis of the claim. The principle of open justice prevails, and the Claimant's Article 8 rights do not justify further restriction or redaction beyond anonymisation.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused regarding publication and further redaction orders; costs awarded to Respondent.

Orders

  • ET judgment to be published on the Register, subject to anonymisation and redactions reasonably necessary to preserve anonymity.
  • Counsel to submit proposed redactions to Employment Judge Lewis within 14 days.