Claimant v IQ Healthcare Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a procedural hearing concerning the claimant's application for anonymity under Rule 50. The tribunal heard the respondent's strike-out application but rejected it. The substantive unfair dismissal claim remains to be determined at a full merits hearing.
The claimant identified himself as a whistleblower and brought claims for whistleblowing detriments and dismissal. An interim relief application failed before EJ Roper in January 2024. The substantive whistleblowing claims have not yet been heard.
The claimant brings section 15 Equality Act claims concerning his inability to make the same number of calls as colleagues and his slower working pace arising from his cerebral palsy. The respondent accepts the claimant was disabled and knew of his disability. The substantive claim is yet to be heard.
The claimant alleges failures to adjust call-answering targets, training completion timescales, and the failure to provide a height-adjustable desk suitable for his wheelchair and specialist chair. The respondent accepted the claimant's disability. The substantive claim is yet to be heard.
A victimisation claim is pleaded but not detailed in this judgment. It is noted that the disability is irrelevant to this claim and it remains to be determined at a full merits hearing.
Facts
The claimant, who has cerebral palsy, brought claims against his former employer for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, and disability discrimination. He applied for anonymity under Rule 50, arguing that publication of his name alongside details of his disability would breach his Article 8 privacy rights, harm his employment prospects, and exacerbate his anxiety. An interim relief hearing in January 2024 was unsuccessful and published under his full name. He initially sought partial anonymity (initials only), later expanding his application to full anonymity based on medical evidence concerning his anxiety condition.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for anonymity. Employment Judge Salter held that the claimant had not provided clear and cogent evidence that harm to his privacy rights was sufficient to justify derogation from the fundamental principle of open justice. The judge found that the substantive claims would require only limited consideration of the claimant's medical condition, the claimant had chosen to initiate proceedings and had been represented throughout without earlier application for anonymity, and the medical evidence did not sufficiently support the need for restriction.
Practical note
Applications for anonymity in disability discrimination cases require clear and cogent evidence of harm that outweighs the fundamental principle of open justice; the mere fact that a claimant has a disability, even if it will be discussed in proceedings, is insufficient without evidence of specific harm arising from publication of the claimant's name.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401381/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister