A & Anor v X (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Disclosure) [2019] UKEAT 0113_18_2606 (26 June 2019)

A & Anor v X (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Disclosure) [2019] UKEAT 0113_18_2606 (26 June 2019)

The EAT has jurisdiction to make a Restricted Reporting Order continuing beyond promulgation of its decision, based on s.30(3) ETA 1996 as interpreted compatibly with Convention rights. In this case, the balance of rights, including the mandatory anonymisation of the EAT judgment, the risk to Article 8 rights of the Second Respondent, and the real risk of compromising statutory anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, outweigh the public interest in open justice and reporting. A continuing RRO is therefore justified.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0113_18_2606
Parties
Appellant: Claimants; Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Second Respondent; Respondent: Third Respondent (TNL)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Further Application / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside Interim Restricted Reporting Order (rro)
Outcome
Application to set aside the RRO refused; continuing RRO granted.
Legal Topics
Restricted Reporting Orders, Anonymity in Sexual Misconduct Cases, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR (privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Sexual Offences (amendment) Act 1992, Employment Tribunals Act 1996
Employment Law Media Law Human Rights Restricted Reporting Orders Anonymity in Sexual Misconduct Cases Open Justice Article 8 ECHR (privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) +2 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimants

Appellant

First Respondent

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Third Respondent (TNL)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Further Application / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside Interim Restricted Reporting Order (rro)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the EAT have jurisdiction to make a Restricted Reporting Order (RRO) beyond promulgation of its decision?
  2. 2 Should a continuing RRO be granted balancing open justice and Article 10 against Article 8 rights and statutory anonymity protections?

Ratio Decidendi

The EAT has jurisdiction to make a Restricted Reporting Order continuing beyond promulgation of its decision, based on s.30(3) ETA 1996 as interpreted compatibly with Convention rights. In this case, the balance of rights, including the mandatory anonymisation of the EAT judgment, the risk to Article 8 rights of the Second Respondent, and the real risk of compromising statutory anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, outweigh the public interest in open justice and reporting. A continuing RRO is therefore justified.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the RRO refused; continuing RRO granted.

Orders

  • A continuing Restricted Reporting Order (RRO) is to remain in place protecting the identities of the parties as per the terms to be agreed by Counsel.