The Claimant applied for a judgment in earlier ET proceedings against the Respondent to be removed from the public Register, and sought an Anonymity Order in relation to those proceedings on the basis that her rights under Article 8 ECHR had been infringed. The ET held that it had no power to exclude the judgment from the Register; and, even though publication of the judgment caused the Claimant distress, Article 8 was not engaged so as to overrule the principle of open justice.

The EAT held that the ET had correctly concluded that it had no power to exclude or remove a judgment from the public Register, and that it had properly exercised its discretion in refusing to make an Anonymity Order.