PMC v A Local Health Board

Open justice is the starting point in civil proceedings. Anonymity and reporting restrictions are exceptional derogations requiring clear and cogent evidence that they are necessary and proportionate. There is no general presumption of anonymity for children or other vulnerable litigants.

A withholding order and a reporting restriction are distinct. A reporting restriction requires a statutory basis. CPR 39.2(4) and s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 do not themselves provide that basis. Under s.39 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933, the court has jurisdiction to restrict identification of a child, but necessity and proportionality remain essential.

Existing publicity, public access to court documents and the risk of jigsaw identification are highly material. Where anonymity is sought late, targeted restrictions may protect private medical information without suppressing identification. The application was refused.

The Claimant, a child, brought a clinical negligence claim arising from birth injuries and cerebral palsy. Liability had been admitted and judgment entered by consent. The remaining issue was quantum, with a ten-day trial listed for December 2025.

No anonymity order had been sought when the claim was issued in March 2023. The Claim Form, Particulars of Claim and orders were therefore available under the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Claimant and the claim had already received substantial media coverage. A journalist later indicated an intention to publish a further report.

The Claimant applied for anonymity and reporting restrictions for himself and his litigation friend. The central issues were whether the proposed restrictions had a proper statutory basis, whether an order could now be necessary and proportionate, and what effect it would have on existing and future reporting.

1. Disposition. The application for anonymity and reporting restrictions was refused. The Court also refused to make any order under s.39 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933.
2. Open justice is the starting point. A derogation must be justified by clear and cogent evidence, shown to be necessary and proportionate on an intense examination of the particular facts. Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 has presumptive priority, although substantial weight must be given to open justice and the public interest in identifying parties and reporting proceedings.
3. A withholding order and a reporting restriction are distinct. The former regulates the Court’s proceedings and does not itself prohibit publication. A reporting restriction requires statutory authority. Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is ancillary to a prior withholding order and operates prospectively. Section 39 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933 supplies jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving a child, but does not remove the requirements of necessity and proportionality.
4. [2024] 2 WLR 45 was not followed insofar as an observation suggested a general common-law power to impose reporting restrictions. The Court followed Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] AC 161 on the need for a statutory basis. JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647 did not decide the statutory jurisdiction for reporting restrictions and did not justify anonymity outside the approval-hearing context.
5. The Claimant’s age, disabilities and the likely disclosure of private medical information favoured protection. However, the evidence of exploitation was vague, the claim had been conducted openly, and substantial identifying material was already available online. A late order would risk retrospective interference with existing publications and jigsaw identification, substantially impairing Article 10 rights. More targeted orders concerning particular private information could address Article 8 concerns without anonymising the Claimant.

not stated in the judgment.