London Borough of Brent v N & Ors

A local authority’s duty to share relevant information about a child’s health with the child’s parents does not generally require disclosure of a foster carer’s confidential medical condition where the risk of transmission of a serious infection is negligible. Disclosure of intimate medical information engages article 8 and requires particularly serious reasons, including a pressing need and disclosure proportionate to the protective purpose. Where the risk is not negligible, disclosure may be justified, but the decision remains fact-sensitive.

The local authority sought permission to disclose to a child’s father and his partner that the child’s foster carer was HIV positive. The child had lived with the foster carers since October 2003 and was expected to move to her father’s care. The application followed uncertainty about the local authority’s obligations and the foster carer’s objection to disclosure.

After an adjournment, medical evidence established that normal non-sexual household contact created a negligible risk of transmission. The central issue was whether the local authority owed the parents or child a duty to disclose the foster carer’s status despite the foster carer’s confidentiality and article 8 rights.

1. Article 8. Disclosure of a person’s medical condition to a third party without consent interferes with the person’s right to respect for private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Particularly serious reasons are required where the information concerns an intimate aspect of private life. Disclosure must answer a pressing need and be limited to what is necessary.
2. General duty to share health information. A local authority generally has an obligation to share relevant information about a child in its care with the child’s parents. Relevant information may include exposure to an infectious disease where the risk is not negligible and the consequences of infection are serious.
3. Application to the facts. The accepted medical evidence showed that the risk of HIV transmission through normal non-sexual household contact was negligible. The information was not relevant to any present or future judicial decision about placement, and disclosure was opposed by the person whose confidentiality would be breached. The parents’ interest in knowing of a health risk did not arise where the risk was negligible.
4. Conclusion. No duty to inform the parents arose. If the risk were not negligible, the duty to disclose might outweigh the foster carer’s confidentiality and article 8 rights. Each case would depend on its facts. The restriction preventing the father’s solicitor from informing him of the application and judgment was continued, with liberty to apply.
5. The disclosure principles concerning material withheld in children proceedings were distinguishable because this information would not be taken into account by a court and there was no ongoing litigation to which it was relevant.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.