The Appellant issued various claims against his former employer, the Respondent. In reaching its substantive decisions on the issues, which the Appellant did not dispute, the ET made reference in its judgment to the Appellant's status as a transsexual man and to certain issues relating to his mental health. No application for redaction was made to the ET at the time of the hearing, and the issue was first raised after the judgment was sent to the parties, when the Appellant sent an email to the ET asking for the relevant material to be deleted; the ET declined to do so. The following issues arose on this appeal: (1) did the ET err in law in referring to the Appellant's transsexual status and mental health problems in its judgment? (2) did the ET err in law in failing to make an anonymity order in relation to the Claimant (and potentially in relation to the Respondent), and should the ET have given consideration to redaction or an anonymity order at the time of the Appellant's subsequent complaint? and (3) if the appeal succeeds in relation to the ET judgment, what order, if any, should be made in relation to the EAT judgment?

The EAT held that (1) the ET did not err in referring to the specific matters, (2) the ET should have considered, of its own volition, making an anonymisation order, and (3) the reasons in favour of anonymisation of the ET judgment applied equally to anonymisation of the EAT judgment. Accordingly, the EAT ordered that (a) the parties' names would be anonymised, and they would not appear in the body of the judgment below, (b) the record of the ET's judgment and reasons would be amended so as to reflect the anonymisation, and (c) the EAT's judgment would be anonymised.