(1) B, the Organisation (2) C (3) D

Judgment approved by the court for handing down A v (1) Organisation (2) C (3) D © EAT 2025 Page 1 [2025] EAT 167 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EAT 167 Case No: EA-2024-000440-RS and EA-2024-000504-RS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 13 November 2025 Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : A Appellant - and - (1) B, the Organisation (2) C (3) D Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A the Appellant in person Paul Michell (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) for the Respondents Hearing date: 28 August 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down A v (1) Organisation (2) C (3) D © EAT 2025 Page 2 [2025] EAT 167 SUMMARY Practice and Procedure The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to vary or set aside a Restricted Reporting and Anonymisation Order. Judgment approved by the court for handing down A v (1) Organisation (2) C (3) D © EAT 2025 Page 3 [2025] EAT 167 HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER: The issues 1. The issues in these appeals are whether an Employment Judge erred in law in refusing to set aside or vary a permanent Restricted Reporting and Anonymisation Order (“the original RRO”) and in refusing to “review” that decision. 2. The application to set aside or vary the original RRO was refused by Employment Judge Hutchinson, after a hearing on 18 January 2024, by an Order with reasons sent to the parties on 29 February 2024 (“the refusal of revocation Order”). An application for “reconsideration” was refused by letter dated 5 April 2024 (“the refusal of review letter”). The claims and Orders 3. The parties are referred to as the claimant and respondents as they were be…