A solicitor and part-time judge making a claim through the employment tribunal has been denied anonymity - partly on the basis of her professional status and because it would make her case more interesting.
Allis Beasley had applied for an order removing her name in her claim against Kent firm Brachers, where she was a partner specialising in property litigation disputes until 2024.
Beasley said she was ‘extremely anxious, overwhelmed and scared’ about the prospect of having to disclose medical details and that disclosure of this information would be highly detrimental to her mental health and wellbeing. She also described having started a new legal practice and not wanting her professional reputation to be overshadowed by personal details.
Her representative submitted to the London South Employment Tribunal that it was ‘neater’ to remove her name and suggested there was a risk she would be inhibited from giving evidence openly and freely when the case came to a full hearing.
But the respondent said that Beasley, who sits as a part-time judge of the property chamber of the First Tier Tribunal, submitted there was a particular public interest in the public knowing how a solicitor and part time judge was conducting litigation. It was also suggested that commercial interests relating to her new business were likely a more significant factor in the application.
Employment Judge Tom Perry said it was common for claimants to feel anxious and scared about giving evidence on personal medical matters, but that this issue could be addressed by redacting or ordering restrictions on aspects of her evidence.
He said there was not sufficient cogent and compelling evidence of the likelihood that Beasley could suffer health issues from giving evidence. The judge also rejected any suggestions about commercial concerns.
Perry added: ‘Finally, there is some force in [the] submission that there may be legitimate public interest in the claimant’s identification in these proceedings both generally because it makes cases more interesting for editors and particularly because of her status as a solicitor and the specific public office she holds.’
