In the ET proceedings, the Claimant applied for a permanent anonymity order in her favour. The EJ declined to grant such an order and gave written reasons for this decision. The EJ decided that there was no necessity in the interests of justice to derogate from open justice by granting anonymity. The EJ then checked this conclusion against the relevant Convention rights. The EJ recognised that the Claimant had a right to privacy under Art 8, but decided that this did not outweigh the public rights to open justice under Articles 6 and 10. The Claimant made a further application for anonymity when she appealed to the EAT. She then revealed that she had made an allegation of a sexual assault by the Respondent, and the allegation was concerned with events that were not the subject of the ET proceedings. The ET claim did not include any allegation of a criminal offence and this allegation was not drawn to the attention of the EJ in the ET proceedings. The Respondent has not been questioned by the police in relation to this allegation and has not been arrested or charged with the alleged offence. The primary submission by the Claimant was that, in light of the complaint that has been made to the police, the court was obliged to grant lifelong anonymity to the Claimant in relation to the entirety of the ET and EAT proceedings, including the Reasons and judgments, because of the requirements of section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”).

The EAT granted lifelong anonymity in the ET and EAT as that was the only way of providing anonymity for the Claimant in relation to the allegation of sexual assault.