L v Q Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1417 (09 August 2019)

L v Q Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1417 (09 August 2019)

The Employment Tribunal does not have power under Rule 50 or the relevant statutory provisions to prohibit publication of its judgment on the Register in disability discrimination cases, except in national security cases. Further redaction to anonymise the claimant's disabilities and related details is not justified, as it would undermine the understanding of the judgment and is not required to protect the claimant's Article 8 rights.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1417
Parties
Appellant/claimant: L; Respondent: Q Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Anonymisation, Disability Discrimination, Publication of Judgments, Redaction, Restricted Reporting Orders
Employment Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Open Justice Anonymisation Disability Discrimination Publication of Judgments Redaction +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Appellant/claimant

Q Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal (ET) has power to prohibit publication of its judgment on the Register in disability discrimination cases
  2. 2 Whether further redaction of the ET and EAT judgments is required to anonymise the claimant's disabilities and related details

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal does not have power under Rule 50 or the relevant statutory provisions to prohibit publication of its judgment on the Register in disability discrimination cases, except in national security cases. Further redaction to anonymise the claimant's disabilities and related details is not justified, as it would undermine the understanding of the judgment and is not required to protect the claimant's Article 8 rights.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • The application for permission to appeal against the EAT's order (setting aside the ET's non-publication order and refusing further redaction) is refused.
  • Counsel to submit a list of proposed redactions necessary to preserve anonymity, to be approved by the ET judge before publication.