S (A Child) v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor

When approving a compromise on behalf of a child, the court must decide whether the settlement is in that child’s best interests. The assessment is global and includes non-pecuniary benefits, the value of any rights surrendered, and the child’s wishes and feelings. A confidentiality clause may be approved, but only where the court is satisfied that the settlement adequately reflects the value of the claim and the child’s affected Article 8 rights. The court remains bound by an approved and sealed order. It should not give general guidance on allegations which have been compromised and never tested by adversarial evidence. Local-authority anonymity requires a proper justification; general concerns about reputation or recruitment are insufficient.

The Official Solicitor brought proceedings on behalf of a vulnerable child against a local authority and its independent reviewing officer. The claim alleged breaches of statutory duties and Convention rights during a period when the child was accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. Judicial-review proceedings and the human-rights claim were followed by care proceedings. The human-rights claim was subsequently compromised, with the local authority admitting vicarious liability for the reviewing officer and agreeing to contribute £50,000 towards costs. The court was asked to approve the compromise, determine the effect of its confidentiality clause, and give wider guidance on the treatment of accommodated children. The central issues were whether the compromise was in the child’s best interests and whether the court should publish broader observations on untested allegations.

1. The compromise was approved under CPR Part 21.10. The court’s task was to decide whether the settlement was in S’s best interests. The court was entitled to rely heavily on the detailed advice of S’s legal representatives, while retaining its own responsibility to assess the settlement.
2. The confidentiality clause engaged S’s rights under Articles 8 and 10. The court had to assess both the value of the compromise and the value of the Article 8 rights surrendered, including the right to share one’s own life story. The child’s expressed wishes and feelings were relevant. The assessment had to be made in the round, and benefit was not confined to money.
3. The confidentiality clause was lawful and had been incorporated into an order which had been made and sealed. The court could not subsequently resile from that order. The order itself remained publishable. The same applied to the Particulars of Claim because CPR Part 5.4C placed them in the public domain and no order restricting access had been sought.
4. The court declined to give guidance on the wider issues concerning children accommodated under section 20. The allegations had not been admitted, the claim had not been defended to trial, and the evidence and arguments had not been tested. Judges should not decide hypothetical cases or issue guidance detached from the purifying effect of contested facts and skilled argument.
5. The local authority’s anonymity was refused. The court accepted the general analytical framework of identifying the rights engaged and balancing them proportionately, but found no proper basis for anonymity. The possibility of recruitment difficulties, reputational harm, or the absence of wider public interest did not justify withholding the authority’s identity.