JXF v York Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Anonymity is an exception to the principle of open justice and must be justified on the particular facts. In an approval hearing for a settlement involving a child or protected party, the court must consider whether Convention rights, especially article 8, are engaged and then whether the public interest in identifying the claimant justifies the resulting interference with private and family life. The court must balance that interest against freedom of expression and the public value of open proceedings. The risk that disclosure of a substantial award would defeat the protective purpose of the approval hearing may justify anonymity, but anonymity must not become routine.

The claimant, a child, brought a negligence claim concerning hospital treatment. The court approved a settlement under CPR 21.10. The claimant sought anonymity and related restrictions on disclosure, principally because knowledge of the substantial settlement might expose him to exploitation or loss of the compensation. The hearing was held in public and the defendant did not oppose the application.

The issue was whether the court should make an anonymity order under CPR 39.2, notwithstanding the principle of open justice and the absence of evidence of unusually intrusive reporting.

1. Principle. The general rule is that proceedings are conducted in public and parties are named. Any derogation, including anonymity, requires justification on the particular facts. The court must remain vigilant against exceptions becoming routine.
2. Convention balance. Where anonymity is sought on Convention grounds, the court should first ask whether the claimant’s article 8 rights, or other Convention rights, are engaged. If they are, the court must ask whether there is sufficient general public interest in publishing an identifying report to justify the resulting restriction of those rights. The exercise requires a fact-sensitive balance between articles 8 and 10, informed by the common-law principle of open justice.
3. Approval hearings. The protective purpose of an approval hearing under CPR 21.10 includes ensuring that recovered money is properly looked after and wisely applied. If identifying a claimant would create a real risk that substantial compensation would be lost to fortune hunters or thieves, disclosure could defeat that purpose and provide a strong justification for anonymity.
4. The claimant’s concerns about media intrusion were weak because there was no evidence of irresponsible reporting. The public interest in reporting the award and identifying the claimant was nevertheless real. On the particular facts, the risk to the protective purpose of the approval hearing outweighed that interest, and the anonymity order was justified.