Skip to main content

Privacy order in Employment Tribunal

The link is to a Daily Mail story that has a privacy order as part of an Employment Tribunal.

A celebrity chef won a privacy order yesterday granting him anonymity over claims he mistreated two employees whom he later sacked at his business empire.

The ruling means that he cannot be named at an employment tribunal later this year brought by the female and male members of his staff.


I will be looking for the judgment for this. Superficially this looks wrong.

Comments

Unknown said…
Indeed, this looks wrong, John.

Once again: a privacy order is used to hide unethical behaviour to paint a good image.

Mainstream Media still seem to think that gagging orders are ok. They don't realise that they are used not only to cover unethical behaviour such as unfair dismissal or an affair outside marriage but also CRIMINAL activities by public authorities!
Jerry said…
John, I have heard on the Grape vine that an MP has applied for a Super injunction and that Sir George Young will be investigating the matter, is there any truth in this

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.