Yes, according to JK v Ealing Council.
JK worked as a social worker for Ealing Council. After the termination of her employment she brought various claims and applied for an anonymity order to protect her identity. Initially her application was refused, partly on the basis that the medical evidence she provided in support gave little information about the impact on her mental health of publicity around her case.
A second application for anonymity which referred to her diagnosis of depression and anxiety was submitted. Her contention was that public disclosure of information about her health and treatment had contributed and would continue to contribute to a further deterioration in her mental health. She sent two items of evidence to the tribunal – a letter from her GP detailing the severity of the deterioration and a clinical psychologist’s letter which outlined that the refusal to grant anonymity had in fact led to an acute deterioration. JK also argued that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged and that the right to her private life outweighed the principle of open justice.
Relying on its wide powers pursuant to section 30 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, interpreted in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, the EAT determined that anonymity was appropriate in this case.
New evidence indicated that publication of JK’s name would cause a deterioration in JK’s mental health. In this instance her Article 8 rights carried substantial weight and applying the delicate balancing exercise of the principle of open justice weighed against the harm to the individual the EAT made the order. The availability of new medical evidence swung the balance in favour of the claimant.
Claimants are reminded that anonymity is the exception in employment tribunals and that if anonymity is sought there must be solid medical evidence in support of the application.
Written by Yavnik Ganguly
