< Back to Cases
Anonymity Applications
Rad Kohanzad appeared for the Appellant in DBP v Scottish Ambulance Service [2025] EAT 147, an appeal about the fair handling of a late application for permanent anonymity in Employment Tribunal proceedings. The claimant argued that the Tribunal had wrongly refused to consider her application further because she had not yet provided medical evidence, despite explaining that she was willing to obtain it. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal, finding that fairness required a reasonable opportunity to obtain the evidence before the application was rejected. The matter was remitted to a different Employment Judge for reconsideration.
Background and procedural history
The claimant had brought claims against the Scottish Ambulance Service, including unfair constructive dismissal, detriment for making protected disclosures and disability-related harassment. The Employment Tribunal dismissed those claims following a full hearing in 2022.
The claimant had previously sought anonymity, but the Tribunal refused her applications. In January 2024, more than a year after receiving the Tribunal's judgment, she renewed her request for a permanent anonymity order. She explained that the published judgment disclosed sensitive information about her mental health and that its continued availability online caused serious concern. She also raised fears about personal safety and the potential effect on her future employment.
The claimant remained unrepresented in the Employment Tribunal proceedings. In a further application, she explained that she was willing to obtain a psychological report addressing the risk of harm, and that she had identified an expert who could prepare one. She asked for an oral hearing so that she could explain her position.
The Employment Judge refused the application on the papers, relying in part on the absence of supporting medical evidence. The claimant appealed that refusal to the EAT.
The legal issue: refusing an anonymity application without giving an opportunity to obtain evidence
Employment Tribunals can make privacy orders, including orders preventing the public disclosure of a party's identity. At the time of the decision under appeal, the relevant provision was rule 50 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The corresponding provision is now rule 49 of the 2024 Rules.
Anonymity is not automatic. The Tribunal must give full weight to open justice and freedom of expression, and the person seeking anonymity must establish that a departure from open justice is justified. Clear and cogent evidence may be required, depending on the circumstances.
The central issue in this appeal, however, was narrower than whether the claimant was ultimately entitled to anonymity. It was whether the Employment Judge could fairly reject the application for lack of medical evidence when the claimant had explained that she intended to obtain that evidence and had asked for an opportunity to do so.
Why the EAT allowed the appeal
Rad Kohanzad advanced the argument that, if medical evidence was important to the application, the claimant should have been given a reasonable opportunity to obtain it rather than having her request rejected because it was not yet available. The EAT accepted that argument.
Judge Barry Clarke held that the Employment Judge's approach was “plainly wrong”. The claimant had identified the type of evidence she could obtain, had found a potential expert and had explained how she intended to fund the report despite her financial circumstances. These were material features of the application, not merely a general request for more time.
The EAT emphasised that a Tribunal may properly refuse an anonymity application where the evidence does not justify departing from open justice. It did not suggest that medical evidence must always be commissioned, that every application requires an oral hearing, or that a claimant's assertions must automatically be accepted.
The error lay in refusing this particular application summarily because the evidence had not yet been produced, without giving the claimant a reasonable opportunity to obtain evidence she had indicated she could provide. The EAT considered that the Tribunal should have contemplated a time-limited opportunity for the medical evidence to be obtained and served. Depending on what that evidence showed, a short oral hearing might then have been a proportionate next step.
What the EAT ordered
The EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the anonymity application to a different Employment Judge for fresh consideration. The new judge was to set a realistic timetable for the evidence. The EAT indicated that an oral hearing was likely to be a proportionate and desirable way to resolve the application, while leaving the decision on whether to grant permanent anonymity to the new judge.
To protect the claimant in the meantime, the EAT also made a temporary anonymity order, using the initials “DBP” in the published judgment. That temporary order was intended to remain in place while the Employment Tribunal reconsidered the application.
Importantly, the EAT did not decide that the claimant was entitled to permanent anonymity. Nor did it overturn the Employment Tribunal's dismissal of her underlying employment claims. The appeal concerned the handling of the later anonymity application, not the merits of those claims.
Key legal points
Anonymity applications can be made after proceedings have concluded. The passage of time does not, by itself, prevent a party from applying for anonymity in relation to a published Employment Tribunal judgment.
The importance of evidence does not always justify refusing an application before it can be obtained. Where an applicant has identified relevant evidence they genuinely intend to obtain, fairness may require a reasonable opportunity to produce it.
The open justice principle remains important. The decision does not remove the need for cogent evidence or make anonymity the default; it concerns the fair procedure for deciding the application.
The appropriate procedure depends on the circumstances. A time-limited opportunity to obtain evidence, followed where necessary by an oral hearing, may be proportionate in a case of this kind. The EAT did not establish that this sequence is mandatory in every anonymity application.
What this decision means for someone considering an Employment Tribunal appeal
This case illustrates the distinction between disagreeing with a Tribunal's decision and identifying an arguable error of law in the way it reached that decision. The EAT did not substitute its own decision granting permanent anonymity. It found an error in the procedure used to refuse the application and sent the matter back for reconsideration.
For someone considering an appeal, the relevant questions may include whether the Tribunal properly considered the application and evidence before it, whether its approach was fair in the circumstances, and whether the alleged error meets the applicable threshold for appellate intervention.
The outcome will depend on the particular facts and procedural history. An unfavourable decision, or the fact that further evidence might have been helpful, does not automatically establish an appealable error. This case is most relevant where a Tribunal has refused an application because evidence is missing despite being told that the evidence can realistically be obtained.
Advice on an Employment Tribunal appeal
If you have received an unfavourable Employment Tribunal decision, I can review the decision and advise on whether there may be arguable grounds for an appeal before you commit to the further costs of pursuing it. If you decide to proceed, I can also advise on and represent you in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Read more about my Employment Tribunal appeal review and advice service.
Case details
Case: DBP v Scottish Ambulance Service
Neutral citation: [2025] EAT 147
Judgment date: 13 October 2025
Judge: Judge Barry Clarke
Case number: EA-2024-SCO-000036-JP
Outcome: Appeal allowed; anonymity application remitted to a different Employment Judge for reconsideration
Rad Kohanzad's role: Counsel for the Appellant, instructed by direct access
Official judgment: Read the full EAT judgment (PDF)
