EF v AB & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Restricted Reporting Order) [2015] UKEAT 0525_13_2503 (25 March 2015)

EF v AB & Ors (Practice and Procedure : Restricted Reporting Order) [2015] UKEAT 0525_13_2503 (25 March 2015)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly balance the Article 8 privacy rights of EF and NP (and their child) against Article 10 rights to open justice and freedom of expression, by taking into account irrelevant factors (such as prurient public interest), and by not considering the impact on ongoing privacy proceedings. On the facts and findings, the only lawful outcome was to extend the Restricted Reporting Order to protect the identities of EF, NP, and AB.

Citation
[2015] UKEAT 0525_13_2503
Parties
Appellant: EFP; Appellant: NP; Respondent: AB; Respondent: CD; Respondent: JK; Respondent: QR; Respondent: Associated Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Restricted Reporting Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restricted Reporting Orders, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Open Justice, Balancing of Convention Rights, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Human Rights Law Privacy Law Restricted Reporting Orders Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Open Justice Balancing of Convention Rights +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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EFP

Appellant

NP

Appellant

AB

Respondent

CD

Respondent

JK

Respondent

QR

Respondent

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Restricted Reporting Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to extend Restricted Reporting Orders for EF and NP
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal properly balanced Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal took into account irrelevant or insufficiently relevant factors in its decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly balance the Article 8 privacy rights of EF and NP (and their child) against Article 10 rights to open justice and freedom of expression, by taking into account irrelevant factors (such as prurient public interest), and by not considering the impact on ongoing privacy proceedings. On the facts and findings, the only lawful outcome was to extend the Restricted Reporting Order to protect the identities of EF, NP, and AB.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • An extended Restricted Reporting Order is made in the terms sought by EF and NP, prohibiting identification of EF, NP, and AB.