Correa & Ors v BP Plc & Ors

At an approval hearing involving child claimants, the court must balance open justice against the protection of privacy and confidentiality. The hearing should ordinarily take place in public, and any restriction on reporting or disclosure must be necessary and kept to the minimum required. An anonymity order should not be made merely because the parties agree or the press does not object. Where the circumstances already permit identification, anonymity may provide no real protection. The court may nevertheless protect confidential settlement terms where this is necessary to safeguard children’s private financial affairs and is consistent with equal respect for private life.

The claims arose from the deaths of two employees during a terrorist attack at the In Amenas gas facility in Algeria. Their dependants brought fatal accident claims against BP companies, alleging failures in the assessment and management of terrorist risks. The defendants denied liability, including the existence, scope and breach of any relevant duties.

The claims were settled before the liability trial without admission of liability. Because some claimants were children, court approval was required. The court therefore considered whether the settlements and proposed apportionments protected the children’s interests, and what orders were appropriate concerning open justice, anonymity and confidentiality.

1. Approval and settlement. The court approved the settlements and proposed apportionments. Having considered the parties’ positions, the evidence, the risks and costs of a lengthy liability trial, the likely later quantum proceedings and the children’s interests, the settlements were sensible, realistic and fair. The claims had been fully contested and the defendants made no admission of liability.
2. Open justice and privacy. Following the guidance in JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96, an approval hearing remains subject to the principle of open justice. The hearing should be listed and conducted in public. Any derogation must be necessary to provide protection and must go no further than required.
3. An anonymity order was unnecessary. The identities of the deceased were already public, and reporting the circumstances and defendants would inevitably permit jigsaw identification. An order preventing reporting of the hearing or settlement would also have been disproportionate. The fact of settlement, its occurrence before trial and the absence of any admission of liability could therefore be reported.
4. Confidential settlement terms. The court directed that the settlement terms remain confidential. The order and confidential schedule protected the children’s private financial affairs. This was consistent with their entitlement under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the same respect for private life as litigants of full age and capacity, who could settle confidentially without disclosing the terms in court.

Not stated in the judgment.