Tribunal Rejects Anonymisation Bid, Sending Case Back for Rehearing
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has ordered a case back for a fresh hearing, ruling an earlier rejection of an anonymisation bid was flawed.
• public
Key Decision Overturned
An Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has determined that an Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in law by failing to properly consider an application to anonymise a judgment. The case, Mr M v Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (New Devon CCG) (Debarred), has now been remitted to a differently constituted ET for a full reconsideration.
Withdrawal Publication Sparks Anonymisation Plea
The original case involved a claim brought by Mr M, which was subsequently withdrawn. A judgment from September 2017 recorded this withdrawal, including the names of the parties. Although rules changed in October 2020 to exempt certain judgments from public registration, this change was not retrospective. Mr M, who claims he only became aware of the judgment in 2022, sought to have his personal details anonymised, citing his human rights.
ET's Initial Ruling Criticised
An Employment Judge initially rejected the anonymisation request, stating that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life) was not engaged. The judge suggested that such orders were typically made in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct or details of disabilities, and that the mere existence of the judgment online did not interfere with Mr M’s Article 8 rights.
EAT Finds Flaw in Balancing Exercise
However, the EAT found that this reasoning was based on a false premise. The appeal tribunal highlighted that Mr M's application had indeed referenced his "human rights" and an "isolated event in my professional and personal life," indicating that Article 8 was engaged. Consequently, the original ET was obliged to carry out a balancing exercise to weigh competing interests, a task it had failed to perform. The EAT stressed that while anonymisation powers are not unlimited, there is a broad discretion under Rule 50 of the ET Rules.
Case Remitted for Fresh Consideration
The EAT's role is to determine if an error of law has occurred, not to re-evaluate factual matters. As a balancing exercise can lead to various outcomes, the EAT cannot substitute its own decision. Therefore, the appeal has been allowed, and the case will return to a new Employment Tribunal to conduct the necessary balancing exercise and evaluate all the evidence afresh.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr M v Northern, Eastern And Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (New Devon CCG) (Debarred) [2025] EAT 196
