Millicom Services UK Limited & Ors v Michael Clifford

Millicom Services UK Limited & Ors v Michael Clifford

The Employment Tribunal was correct that ECHR rights do not extend to persons outside the jurisdiction, but erred in failing to consider whether derogation from open justice was necessary in the interests of justice at common law, including the relevance of subjective fears and the impact on the administration of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Millicom Services UK Limited; Appellant: Martin Frechette; Appellant: Cara Viglucci; Appellant: HL Rogers; Respondent: Michael Clifford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Non Disclosure and Restricted Reporting Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Confidentiality, Protected Disclosures (whistleblowing), Article 3 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Rule 50 Employment Tribunal Rules
Employment Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Confidentiality Protected Disclosures (whistleblowing) Article 3 ECHR Article 5 ECHR +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millicom Services UK Limited

Appellant

Martin Frechette

Appellant

Cara Viglucci

Appellant

HL Rogers

Appellant

Michael Clifford

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Non Disclosure and Restricted Reporting Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal had power to make non-disclosure and restricted reporting orders to protect individuals outside the ECHR jurisdiction or non-participants in the litigation
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established a real and immediate risk to justify derogation from open justice under Articles 3 and 5 ECHR or at common law
  3. 3 Whether subjective fears of a party/witness are relevant to the interests of justice and Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was correct that ECHR rights do not extend to persons outside the jurisdiction, but erred in failing to consider whether derogation from open justice was necessary in the interests of justice at common law, including the relevance of subjective fears and the impact on the administration of justice. The ET also erred by not properly weighing the existence of a contractual duty of confidence in its balancing exercise. The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted for reconsideration applying the correct legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • Parties to agree terms of order or file submissions for further directions