United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 684_94_0612

Appeal No. PA/684/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 6th December 1994

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (P)

(IN CHAMBERS)

---

TH          APPELLANT

T          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant Mr A. Korn

(Of Counsel)

Messrs Dibb Lupton Broomhead (Solicitors)

125 London Wall

LONDON

EC3Y 5AE

For the Respondents Ms S Drew

(Free Representation Unit)

Free Representation Unit

Room 140, 1st Floor

49-51 Bedford Row

London WC1R 4LR


 


MR JUSTICE MUMMERY (PRESIDENT): This an Application under Rule 23 of the 1993 Rules made in the letter of the 28th November 1994. It seems to fall within Rule 23. I have a discretion to make such an order. I exercise that discretion.

The Industrial Tribunal made an order which restricted reporting until the promulgation of their Decision on the originating application, unless they had revoked it earlier. They have not revoked it. They have not been asked to revoke it. Their order covered the identity of the Applicant, the Respondent and the named employee, against whom the Applicant makes specific complaints. The Applicant consented to that order. Although it is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that her circumstances have changed and she no longer consents, I have not been persuaded on this application that her change of circumstances is such as to justify refusal to make a restrictive reporting order on the appeal.

Nor am I persuaded by the arguments that this is not the most serious kind of alleged misconduct, namely, being verbal, not physical. Taking into account the nature of the allegations, the order made by the Industrial Tribunal, which continues, the circumstances in which the order that was made and the interlocutory nature of this appeal, I exercise my discretion to make the restricted reporting order as requested.

I say no more than that. This will remain a Decision in Chambers and not be published.