The High Court ordered that the parties in an employment dispute be anonymised in any publication or broadcast about the proceedings, after finding that evidence was likely to disclose the defendant’s medical condition and that identifying her would likely cause undue stress.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 15 May 2023, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts granted the defendant’s application under section 27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008. The order prohibits publication or broadcast of matter relating to the application or proceedings that would, or would be likely to, identify the defendant as a person with the condition from which she suffers.
The judge said the order’s practical effect was to anonymise both parties, as well as their respective addresses, occupations and professions. Evidence may still be given in open court; the restriction concerns identifying the parties in publications or broadcasts.
The underlying proceedings were issued on 4 May 2023. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and damages relating to the termination, or purported termination, of their employment. A separate motion by the plaintiff seeking interlocutory relief had been issued and was awaiting a hearing when the judgment was delivered.
The defendant’s application was supported by her affidavit and a psychiatric report. The report described a generalised anxiety disorder for which she remained under treatment, and said identification as a person with the condition would likely cause undue stress. The defendant also said publicity about the proceedings would cause significant distress and exacerbate her condition.
The defendant’s position was that the employment termination arose from the plaintiff’s conduct in June 2022, including an unannounced visit to the defendant’s home and delivery of a 28-page document alleging personal and professional failings. The judgment records this as the defendant’s account, not a finding on the employment dispute.
The plaintiff’s counsel consented to a restriction on publishing the defendant’s medical condition but opposed the broader anonymisation sought. Counsel argued that the condition was not central to the case and references to it could be removed without concealing the parties’ identities. The defendant’s counsel said that approach would not be workable because the evidence was intertwined.
Justice Roberts found that correspondence created by the plaintiff, exhibited in the proceedings and expected to be important evidence, referred repeatedly to the defendant’s condition and linked it to complaints about her behaviour. The judge concluded that protecting only the medical information would be impractical and risk inadvertent breaches. She was satisfied that anonymising both parties would not prejudice the interests of justice.
The judgment decided only the anonymity application. It did not determine the employment dispute or the plaintiff’s pending application for interlocutory relief.