EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL Anonymity Case TYU v ILA Spa Ltd: EA-2019-000983-VP Facts In March 2018 the ET heard claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal against ILA by former colleagues and relatives of TYU. TYU was neither a party nor a witness. The claims failed. The dismissal judgment stated TYU’s name while she was working for ILA. She was also identified in relation unproved allegations of criminal misconduct during her employment. She applied to the ET requesting the removal of her name on the basis that this was damaging to her reputation and employment prospects and had caused her distress. The ET rejected the application. It found that her rights under Article 8 were not engaged. TYU had no reasonable expectation of privacy because information about her identity had been disclosed in a public trial. She appealed to the EAT. Decision 1. The appeal was allowed. 2. TYU’s rights under Article 8 had been engaged. 3. The prior publicity was not necessarily fatal to the application. She had relied on the reputational element of Article 8. 4. In the ET’s judgment there was an absence of specific fact finding or conclusions about TYU’s particular circumstances. 5. TYU’s Article 8 rights were engaged in that they concerned the right to protection of reputation and privacy. 6. There was no need to refer to TYU’s name or role to make the ET’s judgment intelligible. 7. The matter was remitted back to the ET.