PMC v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board

The Court of Appeal held that there is a limited common law power to derogate from the principle of open justice in civil and family court proceedings by making, within those proceedings, both a withholding order (WO) and a reporting restrictions order (RRO). The court explained that such RROs restrain publication of specified material disclosed during proceedings and are distinct from contra mundum equitable injunctions grounded in section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The court construed section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 as a limited statutory mechanism enabling RROs only where a WO has been made in the proceedings, but rejected the submission that section 11 or the common law requires a WO to have been in place from the outset of proceedings.

Applying the law, the court concluded that the judge below was wrong to follow Lord Sumption’s dictum in Khuja that there is no common law power to impose reporting restrictions on material revealed in open court. The Court of Appeal also held that Dartford v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96 remains broadly good law and is applicable to anonymity orders sought in personal injury claims by children or protected parties, subject to procedural caveats. On the facts, because of the claimant’s extreme vulnerability, the private and family nature of the material and the imminent quantum trial/possible approval hearing, a prospective anonymity order was strictly necessary in the interests of justice; retrospectivity could not be granted because of existing publicity.

Background and parties: The claimant is a child born in 2012 who sustained a catastrophic intraventricular haemorrhage leading to profound disability. Liability was admitted in 2016; the claim for more than £10 million was issued in March 2023 and a liability judgment entered by consent in November 2023. Interim payments were made and managed by a deputy. The claimant applied in November 2024 (using form PF10) for an anonymity/anonymisation order in personal injury proceedings brought by a litigation friend.

Relief sought: An anonymity order (AO) comprising (i) a withholding order anonymising the claimant, his litigation friend and immediate family and (ii) reporting restrictions preventing publication of identifying material and limiting public access to unredacted court documents; an alternative fallback order limited the restrictions to operate from the date of the order (i.e. prospective relief only).

Procedural posture: The judge in the High Court (Nicklin J) refused the AO on the basis that there was no common law jurisdiction to impose RROs in relation to what occurs in open court (relying on dicta in Khuja and on a strict reading of section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981) and because material about the claimant was already in the public domain. The claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues before the Court of Appeal:

• Whether there exists at common law a power to make RROs within court proceedings (in conjunction with a WO) that prevent publication of specified material disclosed in those proceedings.
• The legal effect and scope of section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and whether it requires a WO to have been in place throughout the proceedings before an RRO may be made under that section.
• Whether the guidance in Dartford [2015] EWCA Civ 96 applies to anonymity orders in personal injury actions brought by children or protected parties and the correct process for deciding such applications.
• Application of the law to the facts of this case and whether an anonymity order should be made (and if so whether retrospectively or prospectively).

Reasoning and conclusions: The court reviewed the authorities in chronological order and the recent Supreme Court decisions (in particular Wolverhampton and Abbasi SC) which, it held, demonstrate that the common law is capable of development and that courts possess a limited inherent power to make, within proceedings, both WOs and RROs where strictly necessary in the interests of justice. Section 11 was characterised as a limited statutory provision that operates where a WO is made in proceedings; it did not displace or finally determine the broader common law question. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the narrow reading of Khuja relied on by the judge and concluded that Dartford remains largely binding and that its guidance is applicable to anonymity applications in personal injury claims by children or protected parties, subject to procedural adjustments (notably to case listing and notification). The court held that previous publicity is a relevant factor but is not an automatic bar to an AO. Applying the structured balancing approach informed by ECHR principles and Abbasi SC, and having regard to the claimant’s vulnerability, the intrusive nature of the information and the imminent trial/possible settlement approval hearing, a prospective anonymity order was strictly necessary; retrospective relief could not be given because of previous publicity. The appeal was allowed and the court invited submissions on precise drafting.

The appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal held that there is a limited common law power to make, within proceedings, a withholding order together with a reporting restrictions order where strictly necessary in the interests of justice; section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 is a narrower statutory vehicle that applies when a WO has been made but does not exhaust the common law; Dartford remains broadly good law and its guidance applies to anonymity orders in personal injury claims by children/protected parties with some procedural modification; on the facts a prospective anonymity order was strictly necessary to protect the claimant’s privacy and the integrity of future proceedings, but retrospective anonymity could not be granted because of pre-existing publicity.

Appeal from the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division (Nicklin J) [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB) to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2025] EWCA Civ 1126; hearings 25 February and 22–23 July 2025, judgment handed down 28 August 2025.