In a notable decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has granted permanent anonymity to a claimant in employment tribunal proceedings, even though the sexual offence allegation underlying the order was not part of the tribunal case itself. The case, AYZ v BZA [2025] EAT 91, demonstrates how the courts balance the principle of open justice with statutory protections for complainants of sexual offences.
Background
The claimant had reported an alleged sexual assault by the respondent dating back to 2020, filing a police report in 2023. While this allegation was entirely separate from her employment tribunal claims, she sought permanent anonymity to comply with section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (SOAA), which provides lifelong anonymity to complainants of sexual offences.
An employment judge initially rejected the application, reasoning that granting anonymity would undermine the principle of open justice.
EAT Decision
Cavanagh J, sitting in the EAT, overturned the employment judge’s decision, finding that the police report amounted to an “allegation” of a sexual offence under section 1(1) of the SOAA, even though the respondent had not been charged. The judge confirmed that tribunal judgments are subject to the anonymity provisions of the SOAA, as they are considered documents created for use in legal proceedings. He further held that granting anonymity in both the tribunal and EAT proceedings was essential to prevent the risk of jigsaw identification, where details from separate judgments could be combined to reveal the claimant’s identity.
Measures to Protect Anonymity
The EAT implemented several steps to safeguard the claimant’s identity:
- Issuing two separate judgments with no apparent connection;
- Using random initials for the parties;
- Omitting case numbers, hearing dates, and the names of counsel; and
- Not identifying the employment judge or EAT judge who had made interim anonymity orders.
The tribunal emphasised that this decision did not imply any error on the part of the employment judge in declining anonymity based on the material available at the time.
Key Takeaways
While the respondent argued that anonymity was unnecessary for an allegation unrelated to the tribunal proceedings, the EAT concluded that there was no other way to ensure compliance with SOAA. This case highlights:
- The legal obligation to protect complainants of sexual offences, even in unrelated proceedings;
- How the courts can reconcile the principle of open justice with statutory anonymity protections; and
- The careful measures tribunals and the EAT can take to prevent indirect identification of claimants.
