The Claimants, who were employed by the First Respondent company, brought claims of sexual harassment, including allegations of sexual offences committed by the Second Respondent. Those allegations were entirely denied. The Claimants were protected by s 1 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 from having their identities published, and sought additional protection by way of Anonymity Orders. The Respondents sought the continuation of a temporary RRO that had previously been made with both parties' consent. The ET granted the RRO and refused the Anonymity Orders, and the Claimants appealed.

The EAT held, in relation to the RRO, that the ET, in its balancing exercise, did not give full weight to the principle of open justice; but there was no flaw in the ET's decision regarding the refusal of the Anonymity Orders. Accordingly, the appeal in respect of the RRO would be allowed and the application remitted to a fresh ET; the appeal on the refusal of the Anonymity Orders would be dismissed.