PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v A Local Health Board

The Court of Appeal adjourned an appeal from Nicklin J ([2024] EWHC 2969 (QB)) about anonymity and reporting restrictions to await the Supreme Court's decision in Abbasi, which may bear on the evidence required to justify departures from open justice in cases engaging Article 8 and Article 10. The court identified the central legal issue as what evidence a child or protected party must adduce to justify an anonymity order or reporting restrictions order under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in conjunction with section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and whether the earlier Court of Appeal decision in JX MX remained authoritative on that point.

The court decided it was in the interests of justice to adjourn the appeal to a two‑day hearing in the Summer term so that the Abbasi decision, if available, and oral submissions from the Personal Injuries Bar Association and the Official Solicitor could inform determination. The court expressed no view on Nicklin J's critique of the PIBA model order (PF10) but recommended continued use of PF10 in the interim and reminded first instance judges that they remain bound by JX MX until it is departed from by this court or overruled by the Supreme Court.

Background and parties: The appellant is a child (PMC) represented by his mother and litigation friend. The respondent is a local health board. The appeal was brought from an order of Nicklin J in the High Court (King's Bench Division) [2024] EWHC 2969 (QB).

Nature of the application: The appeal concerns the grant of anonymity and reporting restrictions orders (RROs) in proceedings involving a child and raises the legal basis and evidentiary standard for departing from the principle of open justice. The appellant sought RROs under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 alongside orders under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Procedural posture: The Court of Appeal heard argument but, having regard to submissions from the Advocate to the Court and interveners, and to the then‑pending Supreme Court decision in Abbasi, decided to adjourn the appeal for a fuller two‑day hearing after the Abbasi judgment is available (or earlier if the court directs otherwise). The court invited oral submissions from the PIBA and the Official Solicitor at the adjourned hearing.

Issues framed: (i) What evidence is required to justify anonymity or reporting restrictions in cases involving an Article 8/Article 10 balancing exercise? (ii) Whether specific evidence of future risk is needed, and whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in JX MX remains authoritative on that point. (iii) The proper legal basis for anonymity and RROs (the appellant argued reliance on HRA section 6 and SCA section 37 rather than parens patriae).

Court’s reasoning and disposition: The court accepted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbasi may materially affect the legal framework and evidence required in such cases and therefore would be likely to assist the determination of the appeal. For reasons of expedition and fairness it ordered the adjournment to a two‑day hearing in the Summer term, with directions that the PIBA and the Official Solicitor be prepared to make oral submissions and that practitioners continue to use the PIBA form PF10 in the interim. The court declined to express a view on Nicklin J’s critique of PF10 at this stage and reminded lower courts that JX MX remains binding unless and until departed from by this court or overruled by the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal did not decide the merits of the appeal but ordered an adjournment for a re‑hearing to a two‑day listing in the Summer term so that the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbasi (if available) and oral submissions from interveners can be considered. The adjournment was ordered because the Abbasi judgment may bear on the evidentiary and jurisdictional issues in this case, including the standard of evidence required to justify anonymity and RROs under Article 8/Article 10 balancing and the proper statutory basis for such orders.

Appeal from the High Court (King's Bench Division), Nicklin J: [2024] EWHC 2969 (QB). The Court of Appeal ([2025] EWCA Civ 176) adjourned the appeal for a two‑day hearing in the Summer term pending the Supreme Court decision in Abbasi.