The Appellant was employed by the First Respondent. Following her dismissal, she presented multiple claims to the ET, including for sex discrimination and harassment. At a preliminary hearing, the ET made anonymisation orders in respect of a corporate client of the First Respondent and a particular individual from that client, in the interests of justice and in order to protect the Article 8 rights of the third parties. The Appellant appealed against those orders.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in law, on the basis that its decision contained no actual critical or fact-specific consideration of whether the Article 8 rights of either Respondent were engaged in this case, or how they might be infringed by a refusal of the orders sought. The EAT concluded that, if the ET had correctly applied the law to the application which was presented to it, the only proper outcome would have been to refuse it. Accordingly, it would quash the anonymisation orders, and the application would not be remitted for further consideration.