Ms X 1st v The Cabinet Office 2nd Respondent: Mr M Bourke 3rd Respondent: Mr S Case 4th Respondent: Mr A Chisholm 5th Respondent: Ms S Harrison RECORD OF A HEARING — 2024

This hearing concerned a Rule 50 application about access to pleadings and reporting restrictions, not the merits of the discrimination claims. The hearing opened on 15 April 2024, no evidence was heard, and the Tribunal was later informed that the claim would be dismissed on withdrawal in its entirety under Rule 52. Media organisations attending the hearing sought access to the pleadings for journalistic purposes.

The Tribunal rejected the Claimant's argument that anonymity arose automatically because the case involved an alleged sexual offence. It held that there was no automatic anonymity under the statutory scheme relied on, including because the alleged incident said to have taken place in Scotland was not covered by the legislation in the way contended for. It also found that the pleadings were not already in the public domain merely because they had been supplied to media organisations on an interim basis to allow them to make Rule 50 representations.

Applying the open justice principle and the authorities cited, including Dring, the Tribunal held that access to the pleadings arose once they were referred to in open court at the start of the hearing. It considered that the claimant had not shown clear and cogent evidence justifying a broad derogation from open justice, although it accepted there was a legitimate interest in preventing publication of the alleged sexual assault allegation and in avoiding identification of the alleged perpetrator.

The Tribunal refused full anonymity. It noted that the claimant's name was already in the public domain and that some general information about the allegations had already been reported, but it made a restricted reporting order prohibiting reference to the alleged incident of 1 November 2021, its circumstances, location, and any details that would identify the claimant or the alleged perpetrator. The order was made to apply indefinitely for the Employment Tribunal proceedings, subject to any inconsistency with future criminal proceedings.