Christie v Weiss & Ors [2020] UKEAT 0036_20_2705 (27 May 2020)

Christie v Weiss & Ors [2020] UKEAT 0036_20_2705 (27 May 2020)

The Tribunal erred by failing to conduct a fact-specific analysis of whether Article 8 rights of the non-party individual and company were engaged and to what extent, and by not properly balancing these against the principle of open justice. On the material before the Tribunal, there was no sufficient Article 8 justification for anonymisation; thus, the only proper outcome was to refuse the order.

Citation
[2020] UKEAT 0036_20_2705
Parties
Appellant: Appellant (name not specified); First Respondent: First Respondent (law firm, name not specified); Second Respondent: Second Respondent (partner in First Respondent)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Anonymisation Order at Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal's anonymisation orders quashed; no remittal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Anonymisation Orders, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Sex Discrimination, Harassment, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Civil Procedure Anonymisation Orders Open Justice Article 8 ECHR Sex Discrimination Harassment Tribunal Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (name not specified)

Appellant

First Respondent (law firm, name not specified)

First Respondent

Second Respondent (partner in First Respondent)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Anonymisation Order at Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in granting an anonymisation order under Rule 50 for non-party individuals and companies
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 rights of the non-parties were engaged and outweighed open justice
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal should remit or substitute its own decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred by failing to conduct a fact-specific analysis of whether Article 8 rights of the non-party individual and company were engaged and to what extent, and by not properly balancing these against the principle of open justice. On the material before the Tribunal, there was no sufficient Article 8 justification for anonymisation; thus, the only proper outcome was to refuse the order.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal's anonymisation orders quashed; no remittal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Orders that names be redacted from the Claimant's witness statement and trial bundle are quashed.
  • Orders that the company and individual be referred to by ciphers during the trial are quashed.