The First and Second Respondents had previously been granted an RRO by the ET; on appeal by the Claimants (supported by the Third Respondent), the application for an RRO was remitted by the EAT for rehearing by a differently constituted ET, and an order was made continuing RROs in both the ET and the EAT. At a public hearing before the ET, the Claimants' claims against the First and Second Respondents were withdrawn and dismissed. The First and Second Respondents did not apply to continue the RRO in the ET, and the Third Respondent applied to set aside the continuing RRO in the EAT, contending that there was no jurisdiction to make an RRO beyond the date of the promulgation of the original EAT decision; or, if there was any such continuing jurisdiction, the principles of open justice and Article 10 ECHR freedom of expression defeated any Article 8 claim of privacy on the part of the Second Respondent.

The EAT held that the result of the balancing exercise pointed firmly to the continuation of an RRO, pursuant to the post-promulgation jurisdiction to make such orders.