Employment Appeal Tribunal Grants Permanent Anonymity in Sexual Assault Case
The EAT granted permanent anonymity to an appellant following a previously unreported sexual assault allegation, overturning the original Employment Tribunal decision.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Grants Anonymity Due to Sexual Offence Allegation
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled in favour of granting permanent anonymity to an appellant, identified as AYZ, in both the original Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings and the subsequent EAT appeal against BZA. This decision, presided over by Mr Justice Cavanagh, was made in accordance with Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
Background: Anonymity Request and Initial Rejection
In the initial ET proceedings, AYZ applied for a permanent anonymity order, which was denied by the Employment Judge (EJ). The EJ cited the principles of open justice, arguing that anonymity was not necessary in the interests of justice. However, the appellant later made a further application for anonymity upon appealing to the EAT.
The New Evidence: Sexual Assault Allegation
The key factor influencing the EAT's decision was a previously unreported allegation of sexual assault made by AYZ against BZA to the Metropolitan Police in April 2023. This allegation, concerning an incident in December 2020, was not part of the original ET proceedings.
Reasoning for Anonymity Order
Mr Justice Cavanagh acknowledged the potential impact on open justice but ultimately concluded that granting anonymity was necessary to comply with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The Act aims to protect victims of certain offences from being identified. The judge accepted that naming the appellant, even in the context of employment proceedings, could lead to "jigsaw" identification, potentially revealing the sexual assault allegation.
The judge was also mindful of the potential for the respondent, BZA, to be identified, noting the risk that friends and colleagues could piece together information leading to his identification.
Separate Judgments Issued
To further protect anonymity, the EAT issued two separate judgments: one addressing the anonymity issue and another addressing the main appeal. The judge clarified that this decision did not imply the Employment Judge erred in the original ruling, as the sexual assault allegation was not before them at the time.
Read the entire judgement here: AYZ v BZA [2025] EAT 91
