Tribunal Upholds Anonymity Order in Animal Testing Whistleblowing Case
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has rejected an appeal to remove an anonymity order in a whistleblowing case related to animal testing, citing ongoing risks.
• public
Anonymity Order Remains in Place
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled against lifting a Restricted Reporting and Anonymisation Order (RRO) in a case involving a claimant, A, who alleged they were subjected to detriments after making protected disclosures about animal testing practices at an organisation, B, including concerns about the food provided to rats.
Background of the Case
The initial claim, submitted in March 2020, led to the respondents applying for an RRO, which was granted in August 2020 by Employment Judge Butler. The order prohibited the publication of any identifying information related to the parties involved. Subsequent appeals against the RRO were unsuccessful, with judges at both the EAT and the Court of Appeal finding no arguable grounds for the challenges.
The Claimant's Attempts to Vary the Order
The claimant later applied to vary or revoke the original RRO, arguing that the risks to the respondents had decreased. Employment Judge Hutchinson rejected this application, stating that the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence of a material reduction in risk. This decision was upheld by the EAT.
The Tribunal's Reasoning
His Honour Judge James Tayler, presiding over the EAT, found that the Employment Tribunal had not erred in law by refusing to set aside or vary the RRO. The judge emphasised that the original RRO was a permanent order, and challenges to it had already been deemed unarguable by higher courts. The EAT was not tasked with re-evaluating the original balancing exercise but rather with determining whether the Employment Tribunal had made any legal errors in its refusal to alter the order.
Key Legal Principles
The EAT considered relevant legal principles, including the importance of open justice and the need to protect the rights of individuals. While open justice is a paramount principle, it can be derogated from when necessary to protect Convention rights or in the interests of justice. The tribunal must balance these competing interests, with the burden of proof resting on the party seeking the derogation.
The Outcome
Ultimately, the EAT rejected the appeals against the refusal of revocation order and the refusal of review letter. However, the case was remitted to Employment Judge Hutchinson to address the matter of a RRO in the fourth claim. The EAT RRO will remain in place to ensure that the purpose of the original RRO is not undermined.
Read the entire judgement here: A v (1) Organisation (2) C (3) D [2025] EAT 167
