Cases

A v B (EAT)

Facts

A was dismissed by the Respondent as a result of a formal disclosure from the Child Abuse Investigation Command of the Metropolitan Police (“CAIC”) alleging that he had been involved in paedophile activity in Cambodia and was believed to represent a risk to children. He had been acquitted by the Cambodian courts and was not facing prosecution in this country. He had always denied the allegations. In the proceedings before the Tribunal the Respondent did not seek to establish that the allegations against A were true but only that it was reasonable for it to dismiss him on the basis of them.  The Tribunal made a permanent anonymity order under r 49 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure despite the fact that the provision did not apply to cases where the Tribunal is considering an appeal against the substantive order of an employment tribunal, a pre-condition to the exercise of the jurisdiction under s 31 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. 

Also