The Claimant applied three times to be granted an anonymity order; there was a risk of self harm and suicidal thoughts. All the applications were refused even though she had agreed to provide supporting medical evidence. She appealed. The central issue in this appeal was not whether it was wrong for the judge to decline to make an anonymity order. The crux of the matter could be expressed more narrowly: whether it was wrong to refuse the Claimant’s application on the basis that she had provided no supporting evidence when she had made clear her intention to do precisely that.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The Claimant’s application included information on the steps she was willing to take to fund an expert psychological report to confirm and quantify that risk, and she sought an oral hearing where she could explain matters. It was an error of law for the Employment Judge – by a case management decision that was plainly wrong – to refuse that application on the papers, on the basis that it was unsupported by medical evidence. Fairness demanded that the claimant be given a reasonable opportunity to gather the medical evidence she said she could obtain, rather than to dismiss her application on the basis that she had yet to obtain it. The matter was remitted for the application to be considered again. Observations also made about the Register and the increase in post-hearing applications for anonymity.