Private Hearings & Anonymisation – Legislation  

Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 governs the operation of WRC hearings, in particular the presentation of complaints and referral of disputes. Originally that section dictated that proceedings should be conducted "otherwise than in public". This remained the case until the outcome of the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski (Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer & Ors [2021] IESC 24) where the position was reversed. Section 42 was amended on foot of the Zalewski decision by Section 4 Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 ("the 2021 Act") which now directs that WRC proceedings “shall be conducted in public unless the adjudication officer, of his or her own motion or upon the application by or on behalf of a party to the proceedings, determines that, due to the existence of special circumstances, the proceedings (or part thereof) should be conducted otherwise than in public”. This means that the starting point for an AO is that the matter should be conducted in public, unless they determine that there are special circumstances which would justify an alternative approach.

Special circumstances are not defined in the 2021 Act. However, Paragraph 8b of the WRC Procedures in the Adjudication and Investigation of All Employment and Equality Complaints and Disputes  ("the WRC Procedures") provides practical examples of ‘special circumstances’ which may include where a party has a disability or medical condition, cases involving issues of a sensitive nature such as sexual harassment or a protected disclosure or cases which could result in a risk of harm to a party if the hearing is held in public, or if the parties are named in the decision. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Adjudication Officer to determine whether special circumstances exist, however their view may not accord with those of the parties.

Caselaw suggests that other matters which may fall under the heading of special circumstances may include matters involving the disclosure of the identity of minors, where the publication of the decision its parties could prejudice ongoing investigations or where there are linked ongoing cases can be relied on to justify a departure from the standard practice.

We have reviewed several recent decisions where anonymisation has been addressed, which provide useful guidance on this issue.

What are special circumstances? 

The recent decision of A Finance Manager v a Charity - ADJ-00051548/2025 involved a dismissal based on a penalisation claim under unfair dismissals legislation. The Complainant was hired by the Respondent on 1 September 2023 and fired by the Respondent on 2 November 2023 (on notice in line with his employment contract) during his probationary period. The Complainant alleged that he was dismissed as a result of making a protected disclosure to the CEO in respect of financial matters. Ultimately the Complainant succeeded in his case.

An application was made by the Respondent for the case to be conducted in private, with the parties' names being anonymised on public interest grounds. The Complainant opposed this application and submitted that the claim should be heard in public with members of the press in attendance. Further submissions were directed, and the matter was relisted for a case management hearing. The Complainant submitted that it was in the public interest that the issues raised in the case should be heard in the public. In reply, the Respondent submitted that they were a domestic violence charity which provided accommodation and support to its clients who were victims of domestic violence and that any negative publicity would result in a loss of confidence by service users.

Ultimately the AO acceded to the request for an anonymised decision and a private hearing. In doing so he referenced his discretion under the 2021 Act and the fact that even under the Zalewski case there was "no absolute requirement for hearings in courts or before WRC adjudication officers to be heard in public". In particular he relied on the fact that there was a real risk that in the course of the present claim evidence would be advanced which might prejudice the outcome of investigations into the reports made to other bodies, to include An Garda Siochana.  This factor combined with the requirement to maintain a very high degree of secrecy in relation to the work of the Respondent and the location of its refuge accommodation and the "real risk of accidental disclosure of sensitive information during the hearing" which the AO " deemed to be too great to justify a public hearing".

The case of the Complainant v the Respondent ADJ-00045566/2025 involved an application for anonymisation and for the case to be heard in private, by the Respondent.  The Complainant had lodged an unfair dismissals claim following a dismissal for gross misconduct involving allegations of sexual harassment which were upheld against him. The Respondent argued that the applications were necessary protect the privacy of the employee, who made the sexual harassment complaint and that this amounted to “special circumstances”. The application for a private hearing and anonymization was supported by the Complainant's representatives relying on the fact that it was a private and sensitive matter for their client. The AO made an initial ruling that the matter should be heard in private and reserved their position in relation to the anonymisation of the determination.

The issue of anonymisation to include naming the parties and naming the witnesses was addressed at the conclusion of the hearing. The Respondent argued that the interest of open justice was outweighed by the effect on the individuals involved. In particular they indicated that they had a duty of care to the person who made the complaint and to all its employees and if the parties were named given the factual matrix and timeline, there was a real risk that the employee made the complaint would be identified and there could be “collateral damage” not only to that individual but also within the Respondent’s broader environment.

The Respondent also argued that they had taken all necessary steps to maintain confidentiality and that there was no public interest in naming the parties. They emphasised the reputational damage that could be caused by reference to the case of An Bord Banistíochta, Gaelscoil Moshíológ v. The Labour Court [2024] IESC 38 which stated that “without anonymisation of parties, findings made on the balance of probabilities, and sometimes limited evidence, may often be treated as definitive judgments on individuals and will have a considerable half-life and the damage done to reputations can be spread very far, and persist for some time.” The Complainant supported this application and submitted that this case went “beyond” reputation referencing the Complainant's mental health. In acceding to this application, the AO specifically referenced the WRC Procedures which indicates that cases involving sexual harassment can fall under special circumstances.  

Do the parties need to apply for a private hearing or anonymisation?  

Section 8b of WRC Procedures in the Adjudication and Investigation of All Employment and Equality Complaints and Disputes states that hearings will be conducted in public unless the relevant Adjudication Officer decides, of their own motion, or following an application from a party to the proceedings, that due to the existence of ‘special circumstances’, the proceedings should be conducted in private.

In many cases applications are made by the parties however discretion has been exercised AOs in a number of recent cases to include the cases of An Employer v An Employee ADJ-00056893/2025 which involved a significant overlap between the current WRC complaint and a dispute referred under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act and A Complainant v A Member of a Police Service ADJ-00050545/2025 where despite finding against the Complainant the AO directed anonymisation due to the stress of the alleged incident on the Complainant.

Unsuccessful Applications  

In reviewing the bar that is set for "special circumstances" it is also helpful to review unsuccessful applications by the parties.

In that regard, the case of Kathleen  O’Brien v M J Sheehan Limited t/a Devon Inn Hotel (amended on consent) ADJ-00052741 involved allegations of discrimination by a traveller under equal status legislation.. An application was made by the Respondent for anonymisation due to the "serious and sensitive nature of the allegations". The Complainant did not support that application. Although the AO did not uphold the Complainant's complaint, they also refused to anonymise the decision on the basis that allegations of discrimination could not be described as “very sensitive”.

Given the reputational damage that can be caused by media reporting of WRC cases for Respondents, (and in some cases Complainants) is there any merit in seeking private hearings or anonymisation of determinations?  

• It is clear from the WRC Procedures and the caselaw to date that special circumstances are interpreted relatively narrowly. 
  
• If the reasons fall within those listed in the WRC Procedures there can be a reasonable prospect of success.  
  
• Even if no application is made by the parties, it is also open to the AO to exercise their discretion in the absence of any such application.  
  
• In recent cases where applications have been rejected AO's have pointed to matters being insufficiently sensitive in nature.
  
• In making a determination the AO will generally balance the public interest in reporting the case against the damage done to a party/parties if the matter is reported publicly. This is particularly tricky when dealing with protected disclosures where there can be strong arguments on both sides.  
  
• Ultimately these decisions are made at the discretion of the AO on a case-by-case basis making it more difficult to predict the outcome.

DAC Beachcroft Dublin

www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/