Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The ET granted the RRO, to continue until the after (any) hearing on remedy; but refused Anonymity Orders.
The Claimants appealed against the RRO on the grounds (amongst others) that the ET had failed to give 'full weight' to the principle of open justice, as required by Rule 50(2); and against the refusal of Anonymity Orders to the Claimants. The Respondents cross-appealed on the refusal of Anonymity Orders, but conditional on the success of the Claimants' appeal in respect of Anonymity Orders. The Third Respondent was given leave to join in the appeal.
The EAT considered the correct approach when carrying out the balancing exercise under Rule 50(2). It accepted that the ET had not given full weight to the principle of open justice; but rejected the Appellants' further contentions that the ambit of Rule 50 was limited to cases where publicity might adversely affect the administration of justice. It also held that any Order should not extend beyond the promulgation of the decision on liability. The application for an RRO was remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal. The appeal in respect of the refusal of an Anonymity Order was dismissed.
The Claimants submit that the Judge in effect treated that fundamental requirement as satisfied by the abandonment of the application for the hearing to be in private.
The Claimants submit that this again disregards the principle of open justice contrary to the requirement in Rule 50(2).
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.