Claimant v ILA Spa Ltd — 2021

This was a private preliminary hearing on 12 August 2019 before Employment Judge Vowles, sitting alone, dealing with a third-party application by TYU for a Rule 50 order to remove or anonymise her name from the public reasons in the earlier merits judgment. The background to that earlier judgment was that, on 27 and 28 March 2018, the tribunal had heard complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal and had dismissed them in a reserved judgment promulgated on 30 April 2018.

The tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that it had no jurisdiction because the substantive proceedings had ended. It held that there were reasonable grounds to consider the application and that the Applicant had a sufficient legitimate interest to participate under rule 35. It also rejected the submission that the Applicant's circumstances were too remote from the case to justify consideration of her request.

On the substance, the tribunal found that Article 8 was not engaged because the information identifying the Applicant had already been discussed in a public trial. It held that, even if Article 8 were engaged, the interests of open justice and the competing rights under Articles 6 and 10 outweighed the Applicant's position, so the request for anonymity or redaction was refused. The tribunal added that it did not find the Applicant guilty of misconduct and had not adjudicated on the truth or otherwise of the allegations against her; it said those allegations were unproven and part of the intrinsic matrix of the case.