Scottish Human Rights Law Group

4 August 2009

This was an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal. A tribunal involving allegations of sexual discrimination, and subject to a restricted reporting order, settled before the evidence was all heard. A journalist asked that the RRO be lifted. The respondents, a law firm, and the individual, B, accused of perpetrating the behaviour complained of, objected that she had no standing to be heard as she wasn’t a party and argued that the tribunal was functus so the RRO was now perpetual.

The Tribunal lifted the RRO, the law firm appealed, the EAT found for the law firm, and the journalist appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session. The Inner House held that, under the rules in force at the time, she did not need to be party to the proceedings to be heard, but there did need to be proceedings. The tribunal was functus so the journalist lost the appeal.

However, the Inner House also said that “any interference with the right to publish in full what goes on in a Court or tribunal is a serious matter of constitutional significance.” The Court was not determining the respective roles of Arts 6, 8 and 10 in this case, it emphasised, although obviously the consequence of its finding that the tribunal was functus, was that the tribunal was unreportable, so far as identifying individuals was concerned, in perpetuity.

This decision is available to read in full hereFiona Davidson v Dallas McMillan 4 August 2009