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

Where a pending UK Supreme Court decision may materially bear on the jurisdiction or evidence relevant to an appeal, the Court of Appeal may adjourn the hearing in the interests of justice. This is particularly so where proceeding could require the court to reconvene or invite further written submissions. Pending determination, first-instance judges remain bound by an existing Court of Appeal decision unless it is departed from by the Court of Appeal or overruled by the UK Supreme Court. Practitioners and judges should continue to use the PF10 model order for approval hearings in the interim. The court expressed no view on the High Court judge’s critique of that form or on the jurisdictional basis for anonymity and reporting restrictions orders.

PMC appealed from an order of Nicklin J in the High Court in PMC v A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (QB). The appeal concerned anonymity and reporting restrictions in approval hearings, including the evidence required in relation to potential future risks and the jurisdictional basis for such orders.

The Court of Appeal was invited to await the forthcoming UK Supreme Court judgment in Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Trust & Others [2023] EWCA Civ 331, which might affect the issues. The central immediate question was whether the appeal should proceed or be adjourned pending that decision.

1. Adjournment. The appeal was adjourned to a two-day hearing before the same court, if possible, as soon as possible in the Summer term. If the UK Supreme Court judgment in Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Trust & Others [2023] EWCA Civ 331 was not available by then, the position could be reconsidered.
2. The court considered that adjournment was most expedient in the interests of justice. The forthcoming UK Supreme Court judgment might bear on the jurisdictional issues to be decided. Proceeding immediately risked requiring the court to reconvene or seek further written submissions after the judgment became available.
3. The court expressed no concluded view on the appellant’s submission that the jurisdiction to make anonymity and reporting restrictions orders arose under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 alongside section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
4. The court did not express any view on Nicklin J’s critique of the PF10 model order. In light of its practical impact, practitioners and judges were advised to continue using PF10 in the interim. First-instance judges remained bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647 unless that decision was departed from by the Court of Appeal or overruled by the UK Supreme Court.
5. The Personal Injuries Bar Association and the Official Solicitor were to be represented and able to make oral submissions at the adjourned hearing.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In PMC v A Local Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 176, the appeal was adjourned to a further two-day hearing pending the possible availability of the UK Supreme Court judgment in Abbasi.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division: Nicklin J’s order in PMC v A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (QB) was under appeal.