Tribunal Upholds Anonymity Order in Sex Discrimination Case After Claim Withdrawal
The EAT upheld a permanent anonymity order protecting a respondent in a sex discrimination claim after the claimant withdrew her case before it was tested in court.
• public
Employment Tribunal Upholds Anonymity Order After Claim Withdrawal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against a permanent anonymity order granted to the respondent, named as AB, in a sex discrimination claim brought by the appellant, named as XY. The case, XY v AB [2025] EAT 66, centred on a decision made by an Employment Tribunal (ET) to protect AB's identity due to particular circumstances surrounding the case.
Background: Withdrawn Claims and Continued Allegations
XY initially filed a claim of sex discrimination against AB, a fellow employee, alleging sexual harassment. However, XY unilaterally withdrew her claim before the allegations were examined and ruled upon in court. Despite withdrawing the claim, XY allegedly continued to make allegations against AB and falsely asserted to third parties that she had won a sexual harassment case against him.
The Basis for Anonymity
The Employment Tribunal initially granted a permanent anonymity order under Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judge cited two primary reasons for the order: first, XY's withdrawal of her claim, preventing the allegations from being tested; and second, her continued allegations against AB, including false claims of winning the case.
EAT Decision: Open Justice vs. Individual Rights
The Employment Appeal Tribunal reviewed the legal framework concerning derogations from open justice within the Employment Tribunal system, specifically focusing on the issuance of permanent anonymisation orders. The EAT concluded that the Employment Judge had applied the law correctly and the decision was reasonable, based on the evidence before them.
Mr Justice Cavanagh, presiding over the EAT, noted that the initial anonymity order from May 2022 was made permanent on 6 March 2023. The EAT has also granted anonymity to the Appellant, both in respect of the ET proceedings and the EAT proceedings.
Key Legal Points
The EAT judgment clarified several legal principles:
- The right to open justice must be balanced against the rights of individuals, including their right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Tribunals have the power to grant anonymity orders where it is necessary in the interests of justice or to protect Convention rights.
- The withdrawal of a claim before it is tested is a relevant consideration when determining whether to grant anonymity.
Impact of the Ruling
This decision underscores the importance of balancing open justice with the need to protect individuals from ongoing and potentially damaging allegations, especially when those allegations have not been subject to legal scrutiny.
The permanent anonymity order in favour of AB remains in effect, extending to both the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal proceedings. The anonymity granted to XY for both ET and EAT proceedings also remains in place.
Read the entire judgement here: XY v AB [2025] EAT 66
