In these long running proceedings brought by the Appellant, Dr Piepenbrock, the LSE sought to prevent disclosure to the public of the identity of a woman about whom Dr Piepenbrook had made lurid allegations which the ET had found to be untrue. The Appellant was opposed to such an order being made.

The EAT granted the application. The EAT found that the woman’s Art 8 rights were engaged and that the Appellant’s intentions in relation to publicizing his allegations were against the interests of justice. Balancing these matters against the principle of open justice and the Appellant’s Art 6 rights and the right of freedom of expression of the Appellant and others, the balance came down firmly in favour of the former and it was appropriate and necessary to make an order. Given the Appellant’s intentions it would not be sufficient simply to anonymize the woman in the EAT judgment; it would also be necessary to control public access to documents lodged with the EAT and to make an order preventing any disclosure of her identity. It was also necessary to make the order indefinite (though subject to a right to apply to revoke or vary it).