The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has made an order in Piepenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Sciences to protect the identity of a claimant's former colleague who was not a party or a witness in the proceedings, but against whom he had made lurid allegations that an employment tribunal had found to be untrue.
Following his dismissal by the London School of Economics (LSE), the claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. He alleged, among other things, that a young female colleague, D, had made sexual advances towards him. He later made an amendment application to add new claims which was refused by the tribunal, and appealed this decision to the EAT lodging various documents which contained the allegations against D. The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision on the amendment application. The LSE had applied for an order to prevent the disclosure of D's identity, which the EAT decided should be heard separately. The tribunal subsequently dismissed all the claimant's claims against LSE, concluding that he was not a reliable or credible witness, and that his allegations against D were untrue and had been made maliciously.
When deciding to grant an order to prevent the disclosure of D's identity the EAT found that if D was named in the judgment the claimant was very likely to use any document associated with the appeal to "name and shame" and harass her, and would not stop doing so voluntarily. As a result D's right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was engaged and, unless an order was made, there was a substantial risk that it would be seriously contravened. There was also a substantial risk that the claimant would use the court process, including the EAT judgment and other documents, in a way that was an abuse of the system and contrary to the interests of justice, which would have a serious detrimental effect on D. These matters outweighed the principle of open justice and the claimant's rights to a fair and public hearing under Article 6 and to freedom of expression under Article 10.
Take note: It's worth bearing in mind that the effects on D if an anonymity order had not been granted would have been fairly extreme, so this case is very specific on the facts. Although the EAT Rules do not expressly grant the power to make an anonymity order, the EAT was able to do so under the auspices of its inherent duty to act in a way that is compatible with the ECHR by virtue of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
