Frewer v Google UK Ltd & Ors (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) [2022] EAT 34 (17 March 2022)

Frewer v Google UK Ltd & Ors (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) [2022] EAT 34 (17 March 2022)

The employment tribunal failed to properly apply the open justice principle and relevant legal tests for anonymisation and redaction, including the importance of naming names and the necessity for structured, evidence-based consideration; the orders made cannot stand and the matter must be remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[2022] EAT 34
Parties
Appellant: Mr R Frewer; Respondents: Google UK Limited and Others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Preliminary Case Management Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders set aside; matter remitted to employment tribunal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Open Justice Principle, Anonymisation, Redaction, Disclosure, Commercial Confidentiality, Protected Disclosures, Case Management
Employment Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Principle Anonymisation Redaction Disclosure Commercial Confidentiality Protected Disclosures +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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr R Frewer

Appellant

Google UK Limited and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Preliminary Case Management Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment tribunal erred in ordering anonymisation of all clients of the first respondent
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal properly applied the open justice principle
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal erred in permitting redaction of commercially sensitive and irrelevant information

Ratio Decidendi

The employment tribunal failed to properly apply the open justice principle and relevant legal tests for anonymisation and redaction, including the importance of naming names and the necessity for structured, evidence-based consideration; the orders made cannot stand and the matter must be remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders set aside; matter remitted to employment tribunal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Remit to employment tribunal for structured reconsideration of anonymisation and redaction applications.
  • Parties to narrow issues and assist tribunal in furthering the overriding objective.