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

Case Summary

This is an EAT review judgment concerning an appeal against Employment Tribunal decisions refusing to vary or set aside a Restricted Reporting Order (RRO). The appellant argued that the original EAT judgment had failed to consider whether heightened need for freedom of expression and greater evidence of public interest were separate material changes in circumstances justifying variation of the RRO. HHJ Tayler accepted the review application and remitted the matter to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration by a differently constituted tribunal.

The EAT judge accepted that he had mistakenly failed to consider and determine the claimant's arguments concerning heightened need for freedom of expression and greater evidence of public interest as separate material changes in circumstances, which the claimant had asserted in the Employment Tribunal. The review was granted because the omission constituted an error requiring remission rather than an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

• •Whether Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to vary or set aside a Restricted Reporting Order (RRO)
• •Whether there were material changes in circumstances justifying variation of the RRO
• •Whether heightened need for freedom of expression constituted a material change in circumstances
• •Whether increased public interest constituted a material change in circumstances
• •Balance between freedom of expression and protection of individuals under the RRO

Judgment approved by the court for handing down A v (1) Organisation (2) C (3) D © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 35 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 35 Case No: EA-2024-000440-RS and EA-2024-000504-RS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 04 March 2026 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: A Appellant - and - (1) B, the Organisation (2) C (3) D Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REVIEW JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down A v (1) Organisation (2) C (3) D © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 35 HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER: The EAT review application and the procedure adopted in considering it 1. In an attachment to an email dated 20 November 2025, the claimant applied for review of my Order handed down on 13 November 2025, dismissing his appeals against decisions in the Employment Tribunal refusing to set aside or vary an RRO and refusing to “review” that decision. The Judgment handed down with the Order (“the EAT RRO Judgment”) should be read with this Judgment. I shall adopt the terminology used in the EAT RRO Judgment. 2. On my direction a letter was sent to the parties on 26 November 2025. I stated that: Having carefully read the application for review and my notes from the hearing I have concluded that there may be arguable grounds to consider reviewing my judgment on the basis that I have mistakenly failed to consider and determine an argument that the appellant clarified at the hearing; namely that he relied in his application [to vary or revoke the RRO] in the Employment Tribunal on two material changes in circumstances in addition to a reduction in risk to the respondents; namely “heightened need for freedom of expression” and “greater evidence o…