Vatish v Crown Prosecution Service (Practice and Procedure : Restricted Reporting Order) [2011] UKEAT 0164_11_1804 (18 April 2011)

Vatish v Crown Prosecution Service (Practice and Procedure : Restricted Reporting Order) [2011] UKEAT 0164_11_1804 (18 April 2011)

The Tribunal erred in law by making a restricted reporting order under rule 50 where no party required protection from identification, and the interests of justice or Article 8 rights did not necessitate such an order.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0164_11_1804
Parties
Appellant: Appellant (Claimant); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Restricted Reporting Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restricted Reporting Orders, Open Justice, Sexual Misconduct Allegations, Article 8 ECHR Rights
Employment Law Civil Procedure Restricted Reporting Orders Open Justice Sexual Misconduct Allegations Article 8 ECHR Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (Claimant)

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Restricted Reporting Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal was correct in making a restricted reporting order under rule 50 in the absence of a demonstrated need for protection from identification.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by making a restricted reporting order under rule 50 where no party required protection from identification, and the interests of justice or Article 8 rights did not necessitate such an order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Restricted reporting order under rule 50 revoked