The Claimant was employed by the Respondent until he was dismissed for purported redundancy. He brought numerous claims, including for protected interest disclosure detriment, and harassment/ discrimination relating to race, sex, religion or belief, and sexual orientation. The allegations made in the claim involved allegedly sexist, racist and homophobic language used in the workplace and allegations that the Respondent's CEO was guilty of breaches of fiduciary duty and serious misconduct, potentially amounting to fraud, and included allegations that institutional investors were deliberately misled. The Claimant applied for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the ET concluded that a hearing to determine an interim relief application must be held in public, unless an order restricting publicity is made pursuant to rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The ET considered that the burden was on the Respondent, who was seeking a derogation from the fundamental principle of open justice and full reporting, and it did not find that that burden has been discharged, and so it refused to make a rule 50 order in this case. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT, having comprehensively reviewed the relevant statutory provisions and case law, held that the ET had not erred in law in concluding that the Respondent had not put forward evidence that went beyond commercial embarrassment, even though it might have potentially very serious financial consequences, and so the evidence did not support the making of an order under rule 50.