Mr A Korn, Counsel For the v Ms A Mayhew, of His Majesty’s Counsel — 2022

This reserved judgment determined only the parties' applications under rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The claimant sought an anonymity order for himself, relying on article 8 and saying that, as a Shudra, publication of his name would expose him and his family to risk. The respondent sought anonymisation of the names of three comparators, Jaldhi Shukla, Chandrashekar Shriyan and Mr Ananthakrishnan, on the basis that the pleadings and evidence contained sensitive personal, employment and financial information. The underlying substantive claims pleaded in the case form included unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, religious discrimination, victimisation, public interest disclosure detriments and dismissal, and breach of contract, but those merits were not decided in this judgment.

The tribunal applied the open justice principle and the balancing exercise required by rule 50, citing BBC v Roden, F v G and Piepenbrock v London School of Economics & Political Science. It accepted that Shudras face discrimination in India, but it was not persuaded on the evidence that the claimant or his family would be threatened or harmed if his identity were published. The tribunal noted that the claimant's two sons were doing well at school, that there was no evidence they had been threatened or assaulted, and that the materials before it were mainly about the treatment of Dalits in India rather than Shudras in the United Kingdom.

The tribunal also refused the respondent's application on behalf of the three comparators. It said the respondent had not discharged the burden of showing that a derogation from open justice was necessary, noting that the comparators did not provide witness statements or attend to support the application. It also observed that the same type of personal and financial information would in any event be public in relation to Mr Athiyarath, who was also a comparator and was to give evidence. Both anonymity applications were therefore refused.