FT/EJ/2024/0007 - [2025] UKFTT 01318 (GRC)

We find that the Applicant should continue to be anonymised in relation to these proceedings, and this anonymisation should be permanent. We make the order set out above.

The Respondent made an application that anonymity should not remain permanent in this case. This was based on evidence that the Applicant was not concerned about anonymity when separate proceedings were issued in the County Court. The Applicant explained at the hearing that anonymity had been requested in these separate proceedings. An interim order was made in December 2024, and more recently a judge agreed that the names of the parents and children should be anonymised. We therefore find that the Applicant has been consistent in seeking anonymity in all court proceedings.

The original anonymity order was made by Registrar Arnell on the following basis – “Because of the underlying facts of the appeal and the Appellant's name, disclosure or reporting of the Appellant’s name or that of their spouse would likely enable the Appellant’s children to be identified. The children's circumstances as stated in the application are such as to give rise to a level of potential harm upon identification that the principle of open justice may be, exceptionally, outweighed when applying the relevant factors as set out in Moss v Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 5802. The direction is justified on an interim protective basis to reserve the position of the Appellant until the appeal is finally decided.”

The Respondent referred us to the Employment Appeal Tribunal case of XY v AB [2025] EAT 66, which considers the principles of anonymisation under the Employment Tribunal rules of procedure. This provides a helpful reminder of the need to consider rights under the European Convention on Human Rights – Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 6 (right to a fair trial), and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) – in addition to the common law principle of open justice. We have also considered the guidance of the Upper Tribunal in Cokaj (anonymity orders, jurisdiction and ambit)[2021] UKUT 202 (IAC).

The Applicant rightly points out that no circumstances have changed since the original anonymity order was made. The reason for seeking anonymity is related to circumstances involving her children. A publicly available local authority report contains some very sensitive information. Although that report is anonymised, publication of the family’s name in these proceedings could cause a “jigsaw effect” and allow identification of those involved in the local authority report.

The starting point is the principle of open justice, ensuring that justice is seen to be done. Anonymising the name of a party to tribunal proceedings is a significant interference with this principle. An anonymity order also interferes with the Article 10 right of freedom of expression, including the right of the press to report on court and tribunal decisions. These rights must be balanced against other rights that would favour anonymity.

The Tribunal finds that the Article 8 privacy rights of the Applicant’s children are particularly strong in this case. One of the panel members in this hearing was also a member of the original Tribunal panel when the Substituted Decision Notice was issued in the first Tribunal decision, and so is fully aware of the background to the original request for anonymity. This is not simply a case where a child would be caused embarrassment by being identified through these proceedings. We agree with Registrar Arnell that there is a risk of potential harm, and in the circumstances we find that this harm could be significant. It is particularly important to protect a minor from risks of harm through breach of privacy rights. In all the circumstances of this case, we find that this outweighs both the principle of open justice and the right to freedom of expression.

We also do not consider that a time-limited order would provide adequate protection, and so make a permanent anonymity order.