Ravi Doshi v British United Provident Association Limited — 2025

The claimant had brought complaints identified at case management as failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. The respondent accepted after receiving the claimant's impact statement that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, while continuing to dispute knowledge issues.

The judgment concerned the claimant's Rule 49 application seeking private hearings, anonymisation of the claimant, respondent and witnesses, restrictions on reporting, and non-publication on the tribunal register. The tribunal found that unrestricted disclosure of medical information would interfere with the claimant's Article 8 rights, but that the orders sought were excessive and went beyond what was strictly necessary when balanced against open justice.

The tribunal partly granted the application by requiring that evidence concerning the impact of the claimant's disabilities, if still controversial, should be heard in private, with the rest of the hearing conducted in public. It declined to anonymise the claimant, respondent or witnesses and did not make an order preventing publication on the register.