Mr G Millar KC Mr D Hutcheon, Counsel v Respondent — 2023

This judgment concerns the respondent's application under rule 94 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure in relation to four sensitive documents: the Vetting Decision Framework, extracts from the Personal Security Policy, and two internal submissions from Ms Shepherd and Mr Dick. The claimant had complained of detriments for making protected disclosures, automatic unfair dismissal, and ordinary unfair dismissal, but those substantive claims were not determined in this judgment.

The tribunal held that rule 94(2)(b), read with rule 29 and rule 94(10), allowed an order restricting inspection of the Vetting Decision Framework and the two submissions, even though the documents had been provided for the proceedings. It rejected the claimant's submission that the rule only prevented onward disclosure after inspection, and accepted that the interests of national security could justify restricting access to parts of documents provided in disclosure.

Applying the open justice balance, the tribunal found the risk to national security self-evident from the contents of the documents themselves. It said the documents showed how vetting decisions were made and could assist anyone seeking to manipulate the vetting process, and it therefore ordered that the Vetting Decision Framework not be placed in the public bundle, that the two submissions be redacted in the public bundle, and that hearing parts dealing with those documents take place in private. The judge did not impose a ban on verbatim note-taking. As to the redacted parts of the Personal Security Policy, the judge accepted the respondent solicitor's statement that they were irrelevant and did not inspect the unredacted version.