A Beasley v Brachers LLP and others — 2026

Employment Judge T Perry rejected A Beasley's application under Rule 49 for an order anonymising her. The tribunal found that Article 8 was engaged because the proceedings involved private medical information, but it was required to balance those rights against the principles of open justice and the rights protected by Articles 6 and 10.

The claimant relied on concerns about disclosing medical material, the possible effects on her mental health and asthma, and the potential impact on her new legal practice. No supporting medical evidence was provided. The tribunal considered that any medical information requiring protection could likely be addressed through redaction or reporting restrictions, if necessary, which would interfere less with Article 10 than anonymising the claimant and would permit her to give evidence fully and openly.

The tribunal found that there was insufficiently cogent and compelling evidence concerning the likelihood or potential severity of the asserted health effects. It gave very little weight to the commercial concerns and noted some public interest in identification arising from the claimant's status as a solicitor and holder of public office. The claimant had not met the burden of justifying the requested derogation from open justice. The judgment did not determine the merits of the substantive employment claims and made no monetary award.