The Claimant brought a claim to the ET in 2017 but withdrew it after they settled. It was added to the online Register. In 2020, such judgments were exempt from being added to the Register but this did not work retrospectively. The ET refused the Claimant's application to remove it stating that Article 8 had not been invoked. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. Because the EJ did not consider that Article 8 had been invoked, the balancing exercise which the law requires was not carried out. That was based on a false premise. Mention of human rights and of private life had indeed been raised and thus Article 8 was engaged.