HMA v GREAT ORMOND STREET HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

At an approval hearing for a child or protected party, the court must independently examine whether the proposed settlement is proper and in the claimant’s best interests. It must consider the evidence, litigation risks, valuation of loss, and structure of the settlement, including any lump sum and periodical payments. Approval is an external check on the settlement’s propriety.

Anonymity in such hearings engages open justice and the competing privacy and freedom of expression rights protected by articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. An anonymity order must be necessary and strictly justified. The press should have an opportunity to make submissions before publication is restricted.

This was an approval hearing concerning a catastrophic injury claim brought by HMA, a child and protected party, against Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust. The parties had agreed a substantial damages settlement comprising a lump sum and periodical payments for future care.

The court was required to determine whether the settlement was fair, reasonable and in HMA’s best interests. It also considered whether HMA and his family should remain anonymous in published proceedings, having regard to open justice, privacy and freedom of expression.

1. The court granted an anonymity order under rules 39.2(4), 5.4C and 5.4D of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Approval hearings fall within the constitutional principle of open justice. Any restriction requires necessity. The court must balance the child’s privacy rights under article 8 against the press and public’s rights under article 10, while recognising the relevance of article 14. The press was given an opportunity to make submissions, and none opposed the application.
2. The court applied the guidance in JXMX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96. Although such hearings should generally be public, anonymity will usually protect the claimant’s identity. On the facts, necessity was established to protect HMA and his family.
3. Under Part 21 and rule 21.10(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, a settlement concerning a child or protected party is invalid without court approval. The court’s task involves judgment and requires regard to justice, the child’s best interests and the overriding objective. The purpose of approval is to provide an external check on the settlement’s propriety, applying the principle stated in Dunhill v Burgin [2014] UKSC 18.
4. Having considered the confidential advice, expert evidence, recoverable losses, litigation risks and evidential strengths and weaknesses, the court found the settlement fair, suitable and appropriate. Its structure comprised a lump sum of £6,995,229, annual payments of £296,000 until age 19, and £359,000 annually thereafter for life.
5. The settlement was in HMA’s best interests and was approved under rule 21.10.