Broome v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council — 2021

The claimant had presented an ET1 on 16 April 2020 alleging direct disability discrimination, disability-related harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and discrimination arising from disability. This judgment did not decide those substantive claims. It determined the claimant's later application, made on 2 July 2021, for an anonymity order under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.

The application was advanced on the basis that the proceedings would refer to the claimant's health and mental health, that he lacked capacity and was acting through a litigation friend, that he was not a public figure, and that anonymity would be a proportionate balance of rights. The tribunal set out the open justice principle and the rule 50 framework, including the need to balance Articles 6, 8 and 10, and referred to the requirement for clear and cogent evidence before any derogation from open justice could be justified.

Employment Judge Salter rejected the application. On the first reason, the tribunal said it was well used to dealing with sensitive health and mental health material, that the facts relied on did not go beyond what is ordinarily seen in disability discrimination claims, and that no evidence had been provided that publication might adversely affect the claimant's health. On the second, the tribunal accepted that the claimant lacked capacity and had been granted a litigation friend, but did not treat that as enough to justify anonymity. On the third, the tribunal said the claimant's lack of public profile carried little weight. On the fourth, it treated the point as a reminder of the need to balance rights but not as a separate basis for anonymity.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant's reasons, taken individually and together, were insufficient to override the paramount principle of open justice. It held that the application fell a considerable way short of the threshold and that the claimant had not shown on clear and cogent evidence that an order under rule 50 was necessary in the interests of justice or to protect a Convention right. The application was refused on 16 September 2021, with reasons sent to the parties on 15 October 2021.