PMC v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board

A civil or family court has a limited common law power to withhold identifying information and restrict its reporting where that is strictly necessary in the interests of justice. This power, exercised within proceedings, is distinct from the equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions against the world.

Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 additionally permits a reporting restriction where the court has lawfully withheld the same information. The withholding order need not have existed throughout the proceedings.

For personal injury claims by children or protected parties, the court must begin with the strong presumption of open justice and undertake a fact-specific assessment. Earlier publicity is important but does not automatically preclude prospective anonymity. Any restriction must provide the minimum protection strictly necessary.

A severely injured child brought a clinical negligence claim through his mother and litigation friend. Liability had been admitted and judgment entered by consent. Before a forthcoming quantum trial, the child sought an anonymity order withholding identifying information and restricting its future publication.

Nicklin J refused the application in [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB). He held that there was no common law jurisdiction to impose a reporting restriction in the absence of the statutory conditions in section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. He also considered anonymity unnecessary because substantial identifying information was already public.

The central issues on appeal were whether the common law permits withholding and reporting restriction orders within civil proceedings, how section 11 operates, whether the guidance for settlement approval hearings in JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust remained authoritative, and whether prior publicity prevented prospective anonymity.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The High Court had been wrong to refuse prospective anonymity. A withholding order and a reporting restriction order were strictly necessary because of the claimant’s extreme vulnerability and the serious interference with his private and family life that would result if medical, family and financial information were reported with his name.

2. A civil or family court has a limited inherent common law power to derogate from open justice within its own proceedings. It may withhold identifying information and prohibit publication of specified material disclosed in open court or court documents where this is strictly necessary in the interests of justice. The dictum in Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 44 denying such a common law reporting power was not applied. It concerned an attempt to prevent reporting after information had already been disclosed at a criminal trial and did not reflect the subsequent development of the law.

3. That procedural common law power is distinct from the equitable jurisdiction, confirmed by section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, to grant an injunction against the world concerning matters occurring outside proceedings.

4. Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies where the court has power to make, and actually makes, a withholding order. It then permits a reporting restriction only so far as necessary for the same purpose. The withholding and reporting restrictions must therefore go hand-in-hand. Section 11 does not require the information to have been withheld throughout the proceedings.

5. Most of the guidance in JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96 remained binding. Settlement approval applications should initially be listed by a pseudonym or as an application under CPR Part 21.10, rather than under the claimant’s name. There is no presumption determining the application, and the applicant must provide the best available evidence. Specific future harm need not always be proved; generic evidence may be relevant.

6. The same guidance is broadly applicable to personal injury claims by children and protected parties, although the jurisdiction is the court’s power to protect the integrity of its proceedings rather than its protective jurisdiction. The assessment remains fact-specific and begins with substantial weight accorded to open justice.

7. Previous publicity is an important factor but is not an automatic bar. The order was to operate prospectively, protect specified identifying information and exclude existing media coverage. It could not prevent reporting about the hospital’s conduct or the amount of damages.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed unanimously in [2025] EWCA Civ 1126. The court held that a prospective anonymity order was strictly necessary and invited submissions on its precise terms.
2. High Court, King’s Bench Division: Nicklin J refused the anonymity order in [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB), holding that there was no statutory foundation for a reporting restriction without a withholding order and that existing publicity made anonymity unnecessary.