A v B & Ors [2018] UKEAT 0113_18_1607 (16 July 2018)

A v B & Ors [2018] UKEAT 0113_18_1607 (16 July 2018)

The Employment Tribunal erred by not giving full weight to the principle of open justice in the balancing exercise under Rule 50(2), and by wrongly considering parity with the 1992 Act. The correct approach requires balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights, giving full weight to open justice, and restricting reporting only as necessary until promulgation of the liability decision. The application for an RRO is remitted for reconsideration. The refusal of Anonymity Orders was not flawed and is upheld.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0113_18_1607
Parties
Appellants: Claimants; Respondent: First Respondent; Respondent: Second Respondent; Respondent: Third Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Restricted Reporting Order and Refusal of Anonymity Orders
Outcome
Appeal in respect of RRO allowed and remitted; appeal against refusal of Anonymity Order dismissed; no order on cross-appeal.
Legal Topics
Restricted Reporting Orders, Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Sexual Harassment, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 Rights
Employment Law Human Rights Law Privacy Law Restricted Reporting Orders Anonymity Orders Open Justice Sexual Harassment Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 Rights

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimants

Appellants

First Respondent

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Restricted Reporting Order and Refusal of Anonymity Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in granting a Restricted Reporting Order (RRO) and refusing Anonymity Orders
  2. 2 Whether full weight was given to the principle of open justice as required by Rule 50(2)
  3. 3 Whether parity between alleged victims and alleged perpetrators is relevant under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred by not giving full weight to the principle of open justice in the balancing exercise under Rule 50(2), and by wrongly considering parity with the 1992 Act. The correct approach requires balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights, giving full weight to open justice, and restricting reporting only as necessary until promulgation of the liability decision. The application for an RRO is remitted for reconsideration. The refusal of Anonymity Orders was not flawed and is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal in respect of RRO allowed and remitted; appeal against refusal of Anonymity Order dismissed; no order on cross-appeal.

Orders

  • Application for Restricted Reporting Order remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal.
  • Appeal against refusal of Anonymity Order dismissed.