TM, Re

Where parents in medical-treatment proceedings have not been appropriately served, the court should ordinarily adjourn if the child can safely tolerate a short delay. A final decision should not be made in circumstances likely to deepen a breakdown between the parents and treating hospital, particularly where consensual treatment remains possible. A temporary blanket reporting injunction is permissible in exceptional circumstances under section 12(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 where publication could seriously damage those relationships and harm the child’s welfare. The restraint should be limited to the period necessary to address the immediate risk.

An NHS Trust applied for the court’s consent or approbation to proposed medical treatment for a seven-year-old child with multiple medical problems and significant developmental delay. Following disagreement between the parents and treating doctors, the Trust commenced proceedings. Mostyn J made an interim best-interests declaration on 3 December 2013 after a without-notice hearing. At the substantive hearing, neither parent nor any representative attended, and the evidence did not establish effective service. The central issues were whether the hearing should proceed and whether reporting of the proceedings should be temporarily restrained.

1. The hearing was adjourned part-heard because neither parent had been appropriately served. The parents were the key respondents, and the absence of meaningful personal engagement or reliable service meant that proceeding to a final decision risked aggravating the existing conflict and undermining the possibility of consensual treatment.
2. The evidence of the treating doctor established that a delay of a few days would not create a serious risk of harm to the child. Accordingly, the child’s medical circumstances did not justify overriding basic procedural justice to the parents.
3. Exceptionally, a blanket injunction prohibiting any reporting of the existence of the proceedings or anything that had occurred in court was imposed. The court recognised that this was a grave restriction on freedom of expression and that the proceedings had taken place in public, with journalists present. Publication could nevertheless reveal the proceedings to parents who might not yet know of them and could have a devastating effect on the relationship between the parents, the hospital and the child.
4. The injunction was held to fall within section 12(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was temporary and limited to the short period of the adjournment. The court intended to resume the case in public and to provide a public explanation if the dispute was not resolved.