Scottish Ambulance Service

Case Summary

The claimant applied for permanent anonymity after her employment tribunal claim was dismissed, citing concerns about her mental health and risk of self-harm from the publication of the judgment. The employment judge refused the application, and the claimant appealed.

• •Whether the claimant should be granted permanent anonymity due to concerns about her mental health and risk of self-harm

Judgement approved by the Court for handing down DBP v Scottish Ambulance Service © EAT 2025 Page 1 [2025] EAT 147 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EAT 147 Case No: EA-2024-SCO-000036-JP EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 52 Melville Street Edinburgh EH3 7HF Date: 13 October 2025 Before : JUDGE BARRY CLARKE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : DBP Appellant - and – SCOTTISH AMBULANCE SERVICE Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr Rad Kohanzad (instructed by direct access), for the Appellant Mr Kenneth McGuire (instructed by NHS Central Legal Office), for the Respondent Hearing date: 24 July 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgement approved by the Court for handing down DBP v Scottish Ambulance Service © EAT 2025 Page 2 [2025] EAT 147 SUMMARY Practice and Procedure Many months after a hearing had concluded, at which an Employment Tribunal had dismissed all her complaints, a claimant applied for permanent anonymity. Now a mother, her application cited (among her reasons) her concerns about a public judgment on the Register recounting her evidence of previous self-harming and a suicide attempt. It also asserted that the continued publication of the judgment created a risk of further self-harming and suicidal thoughts. The claimant’s application included information on the steps she was willing to take to fund an expert psychological report to confirm and quantify that risk, and she sought an oral hearing where she could explain matters. It was an error of law for the Employment Judge – by a case management decision that was plainly wrong – to refuse that application on the papers, on the basis that it was unsupported by medical evidence. Fairness demanded that the claimant be given a reasonable opportunity to gather the medical evidence she said she could obt…