Claimant v White Eagle Lodge

Outcome

Facts

This was a reconsideration hearing concerning an application by the claimant for anonymity or redaction of a judgment issued in February 2024. The original claims of automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) and disability discrimination had been dismissed. The claimant applied for the judgment to be anonymised or redacted, arguing that publication of her identity and details of her disability, mental health conditions, and whistleblowing allegations would harm her employment prospects and breach her Article 8 ECHR rights. She stated she had made hundreds of job applications without success since the judgment was published online and believed prospective employers were rejecting her after finding it. The respondent did not attend the reconsideration hearing.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the application for anonymity and redaction. The judge held that Article 8 was not engaged because the information had already been made public during the February 2024 hearing, and the claimant's objection was to the ease of accessibility rather than to publication itself. Even if Article 8 was engaged, the claimant had not provided clear and cogent evidence sufficient to outweigh the fundamental principle of open justice under Articles 6 and 10 ECHR. The judge rejected the argument that potential employment discrimination justified anonymisation, stating this could apply to most claimants and would undermine transparency.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited