How to save face in the Employment Tribunal – ‘anonymity’ orders

Mark McKeating, Partner

Since the HM Courts and Tribunals Service decided to publish Employment Tribunal / Employment Appeal Tribunal judgments in an online public register in 2017, there has been a growing reputational risk for individuals involved in these proceedings.

I acted for a claimant in a successful discrimination case a few years ago. The press picked up on the online judgment. Of interest, was an ageist comment made by a senior manager in the business which became a headline grabber in one publication. My client was contacted by several well-known media outlets to give their side of the story.  I have no doubt that the losing parties were also contacted.

I expect there to be an increase in applications made by parties in Employment Tribunal proceedings for privacy and restricted reporting orders, especially following the statutory duty to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace came into effect 6 months ago.

Open justice remains the cornerstone of the Employment Tribunal system but there are certain circumstances in which parties can seek anonymity.

Common grounds for anonymity orders

Primarily the grounds concern:

1. Protection from harassment, reputational damage, public shaming, especially in cases involving allegations of discrimination, sexual harassment or whistleblowing.
2. Safeguarding vulnerable individuals such as whistleblowers who may face retaliation or harm.
3. Protection of highly sensitive personal information such as medical records.

Employment Tribunal orders

The types of order a tribunal can make to protect privacy and anonymity include:

• That a hearing that would otherwise be held in public, be conducted wholly or partly in private.
• That the identities of specified parties, witnesses or other persons referred to in the proceedings should not be disclosed to the public, either during any hearing, listing or in any documentation entered on the register or otherwise form part of the public record.
• Preventing witnesses at a public hearing being publicly identifiable.
• A restricted reporting order in relation to sexual misconduct or a person’s disability.
• Redacting the name, address or other information of, or relating to, any person from a claim form, response form, witness statement or any other document in the proceedings.

When can an anonymity order be made?

The Tribunal must consider whether granting an anonymity order would be in the interests of justice.  It must carry out the necessary balancing exercise and apply due weight to all the competing factors.

There have been cases where tribunals have not made an anonymity order such as a former stripper in a holiday pay claim and unproven allegations of sexual misconduct.  In the first case, there was insufficient evidence that being a former stripper would hamper the claimant’s prospects of future employment.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered a recent application by a claimant to keep his name anonymous throughout the proceedings.  The claimant was successful in securing an anonymity order on the basis that disclosing his disability would harm his future career.

F v J [2025] EAT 34

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned the Tribunal’s decision not to grant anonymity. The Tribunal had incorrectly placed weight on the fact that the Claimant had obtained employment and therefore concluded that employability was not affected.

The EAT overturned that decision as the Tribunal had not considered whether the new employer knew of his disability. The Claimant is living with Aspergers.

The EAT found that anonymity for both parties was not contrary to the public interest. The Claimant’s belief that being named in public proceedings involving disability could hamper his employability was objective and reasonable. The EAT had the benefit of the ‘Buckland review’ which highlighted the disadvantages experienced by autistic applicants in the workplace.