yerty/insights/principles · v1.0 · last reviewed June 2026
How we think about the public record.
UK tribunal decisions are public for a reason — open justice is foundational. But publishing one decision and publishing a searchable, queryable dataset of thousands aren't the same thing. Here's how we navigate the difference.
Questions about this position? Email principles@yerty.co.uk.
01 — The starting point
The public record is public for a reason.
Open justice — the principle that proceedings happen in public — is centuries old and democratically essential. Tribunal decisions are published precisely so the public can see how the system works, hold institutions accountable, and understand outcomes. We don't take exception to that principle. We build on it.
The published register is made available by His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0. We use those decisions on that basis: we attribute HMCTS as the source, link back to the underlying published decision wherever we surface material from the record, and honour and adhere to the terms of that licence.
02 — But searchability changes things
One decision in public is one thing. A searchable dataset of thousands is another.
The published register on gov.uk has been there for years. So has the law that says proceedings happen in public. What's new is the technology that makes the entire corpus searchable, joinable, and queryable in seconds — and the AI that makes natural-language access trivial. The information is the same. The accessibility is not.
UK case law (the Google Spain line of cases) and GDPR Article 17 recognise this distinction — the right to erasure exists because being once-public doesn't mean being infinitely findable forever. We take that seriously.
03 — Asymmetric protection
We protect claimant data — and keep institutions accountable.
Claimants, witnesses and named third parties deserve more protection than the published record alone provides. Sensitive and personal data about individuals is not our product — appearing in a decision is often a side effect of seeking justice, not an invitation to be indefinitely searchable.
We also believe there is a clear public interest in making institutions searchable. Companies that have appeared in tribunal proceedings, judges who have ruled, and sector-level trends serve accountability — that is what an open record is for.
04 — Article 9 data
Health, sexuality, religion — the categories that need extra care.
Many tribunal cases involve what UK GDPR Article 9 calls "special category data" — health (in disability discrimination cases), sexual orientation (in LGBTQ+ harassment cases), race, religion. The underlying decisions may discuss these characteristics in detail because the case turns on them.
Yerty does not aggregate or surface special category data about individuals. Where a decision references a claimant's disability, mental health, sexuality or religion, that information stays in the underlying source — it does not appear in our search results, our AI responses, or our analytical views. Sector-level patterns (e.g. "disability discrimination awards in retail") are surfaced; individual characteristics linked to named claimants are not.
05 — How Ask Yerty is designed
What Ask Yerty will not do.
Ask Yerty operates on documented guardrails. It will not:
- Return individual claimants' names or personal details in response to a direct query
- Aggregate sensitive personal characteristics (health, sexuality, religion) across cases
- Facilitate person-based research (e.g. "tell me about all cases involving [named person]")
- Make up information not present in the dataset
- Provide legal advice — that's a solicitor's job
- Speak to live, in-progress proceedings (not in the public record)
These guardrails are documented, tested, and enforced. They are not just guidance.
Read more about Ask Yerty →06 — Erasure and correction requests
How to ask for removal or correction.
Tribunal decisions sometimes contain information that — even though once public — should not be infinitely searchable. Under UK GDPR Article 17, the right to erasure exists for these cases. We balance such requests against the public interest in open justice (a balance UK case law sets, not us), but we have a documented process for considering them.
How to request
Email privacy@yerty.co.uk with the URL or case reference and a brief explanation of the basis for the request. We acknowledge within 48 hours and respond with a decision within 14 days.
What we will and won't do
We will not always remove. The public interest in open justice is real, and some requests will be declined. Where we decline, we explain why in writing. Where we accept, we remove the relevant material from search, AI responses, and analytical views — though the underlying decision on gov.uk is outside our control.
07 — This is version 1.0
We're working through this in public.
This is version 1.0 of our position. We expect it to evolve as the law evolves, as the technology evolves, and as we learn from how the platform is used. If you think we've got the balance wrong somewhere, tell us.
Email principles@yerty.co.uk →Elsewhere on yerty
More from the platform.
Methodology
How the dataset is built. Sources, pipeline, coverage, accuracy, versioning.
Read the methodology →yerty/insights/aiAsk Yerty
Ask Yerty — the AI surface and its guardrails.
See how it works →yerty/terms-of-serviceTerms of Service
Terms of Service — ownership, permitted use, and the database right.
Read the terms →