What Makes Employment Tribunal Decisions Public?

Under UK rules, employment tribunal judgments must be made available to the public to promote open justice, as outlined in the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.

Employment tribunals operate on the principle of open justice, meaning decisions are generally public unless exceptional circumstances apply. According to Schedule 1, Rule 62 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, tribunals are required to provide written reasons for their decisions, and these judgments are published where appropriate.

Not every single decision gets published – routine or summary judgments might not appear online, but reserved judgments (those deliberated after hearings) and significant cases are routinely made public. This ensures consistency and allows parties to learn from precedents without compromising privacy through standard anonymisation.

For example, if a tribunal rules on an unfair dismissal claim, the key facts, legal reasoning, and outcome become publicly viewable, helping future claimants understand similar scenarios.

How to Access Public Judgments Online

Public judgments from employment tribunals are freely available on the official GOV.UK website, searchable by case number, date, or keywords.

The easiest way to view public judgments is via the GOV.UK Employment Tribunal Decisions portal at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. This free resource hosts thousands of anonymised judgments from England, Wales, and Scotland.

Simply enter search terms like the employer name (if public), year, or subject matter such as ‘unfair dismissal’. Results show case references like [2023] ET 1234567/2022, with downloadable PDFs. No login or fee is required, making it accessible for self-representing litigants.

These records date back several years, with ongoing updates. If your case judgment isn’t listed yet, it may take weeks post-decision for publication.

• Visit GOV.UK Employment Tribunal Decisions
• Use filters for region, date, judge
• Download PDFs directly

Name Redactions and Anonymity Rules

Names in published judgments are routinely redacted (e.g., Claimant v Respondent Ltd) to protect identities, unless the tribunal orders otherwise.

Standard practice anonymises parties as ‘The Claimant’ or ‘Mr A v Company X’. This is guided by Presidential Directions to balance openness with privacy, especially in sensitive employment disputes involving discrimination or whistleblowing.

Tribunals may lift anonymity if public interest outweighs privacy, such as in cases of significant legal precedent or public figures. However, this is rare; most decisions redact names automatically upon publication.

For instance, in high-profile cases like those involving major employers, full names might appear only if no restriction order exists, but even then, claimants can request redactions.

Access to Full Tribunal Records

While judgments are public, full case files and documents are not routinely accessible to non-parties without a tribunal order.

Public access stops at published judgments. Detailed records like witness statements, bundles, or correspondence remain confidential to parties unless disclosure is ordered under Rule 31 or for appeal purposes.

Non-parties, such as researchers or journalists, can apply to the tribunal for specific documents, but approval is discretionary and often denied to protect sensitive information.

This distinction ensures judgments promote transparency in outcomes and reasoning, while protecting the evidential process.

1. Submit a formal application to the tribunal office
2. Explain public interest or need
3. Await judge’s decision – may take time

Exceptions and Restricted Reporting Orders

Certain cases involving children, national security, or sexual misconduct allow for anonymity or restricted reporting to protect vulnerable parties.

Under Rule 94, tribunals can issue restricted reporting orders (RROs) postponing publication until proceedings end, common in sex discrimination or harassment claims. Presidential Guidance emphasises protection in such cases.

National security, minors under 18, or disability-related matters may fully anonymise or withhold judgments. For example, whistleblowing with sensitive info might delay or redact publication.

These exceptions ensure justice isn’t deterred by fear of exposure, but orders are lifted post-resolution unless permanent.

• Sexual misconduct claims
• Involving minors
• National security
• Without prejudice discussions

Implications for Claimants and Respondents

Public judgments mean your case outcome is searchable, but anonymisation minimises personal impact – prepare accordingly.

Claimants should assume their anonymised decision will be online, potentially affecting future job searches if employers recognise patterns. However, redactions prevent direct identification in most cases.

Respondents (employers) face reputational risks from adverse findings, even anonymised. Use this to research similar cases during preparation.

Overall, publicity encourages fair decisions but underscores the value of strong evidence and settlement options via ACAS.