Case 1401381/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. N J Shepherd v IQ Healthcare Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401381/2024
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. M.
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. N J Shepherd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application to vary the usual reporting of his name, including partial anonymisation, total anonymisation, and non-publication of the proceedings. The application was made after earlier judgments and case management orders had been published, and was advanced by reference to privacy, disability, anxiety, and the alleged impact of publication on future employment.
The tribunal balanced the application against the principle of open justice and the relevant Convention rights. It concluded that it was not necessary in the interests of justice or to protect the claimant's Convention rights to derogate from open justice, and refused the application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determined the claimant's application for anonymity or reporting restriction, not the merits of the underlying disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, or whistleblowing claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 50 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Article 8 ECHR
- Article 14 ECHR
- open justice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.