Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KB & Ors

The High Court may continue an injunction protecting clinicians where a child remains alive and the NHS trust continues to provide care. The injunction must be necessary and proportionate, and protected individuals must be identifiable by reference to the order. Identification by healthcare team and role may suffice where naming individuals would be impracticable and unstable. The court may vary Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 12(1)(a)(i), to permit specified communications or publication. Disclosure to regulators and other specified bodies may be required in redacted form, while accredited reporters may receive unredacted documents where appropriate safeguards apply.

The proceedings concerned Fatima, a child who remained alive and continued to receive treatment from the applicant NHS trust after earlier decisions concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The court reconsidered the continuation and scope of reporting restrictions following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abbasi [2025] UKSC 15.

The trust sought continuation of protection for clinicians until four weeks after Fatima’s full discharge home. The parents sought clarification and partial variation of the restrictions under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, permission to discuss their experience, and permission to disclose specified documents to public bodies, legal advisers and accredited reporters.

1. Jurisdiction. Following Abbasi [2025] UKSC 15, the court identified three possible bases for injunctive protection: the inherent parens patriae and administration of justice jurisdictions; the Broadmoor jurisdiction, established in Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] QB 775; and protection of clinicians’ tort rights. Because Fatima remained alive and continued to be cared for by the trust, the parens patriae jurisdiction remained available.
2. Duration and identification. Any continuation should have an identifiable duration. The court accepted continuation until four weeks after full discharge, but directed the trust to give notice when the discharge date became known. Protected healthcare professionals could be identified by reference to specified teams and roles in a schedule. A changing list of names would be impracticable and liable to create confusion.
3. Necessity and proportionality. In the particular circumstances, protection extending to clinicians continuing to care for Fatima was necessary and proportionate. The court took account of the risk of harassment and pressure, the possible effect on the quality and continuity of care, the unpredictability of future media attention, and the parents’ legitimate intention to give interviews.
4. Section 12. The court varied section 12(1)(a)(i) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to permit communication and publication of identified information. Nothing in the order prevented the parents from describing their experience of the proceedings, subject to protection of Fatima and her carers.
5. Documents. Documents disclosed to an elected representative, the General Medical Council, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, NHS England and legal advisers were to be redacted consistently with the injunction, with the trust bearing responsibility and cost. Documents disclosed to accredited reporters could be unredacted, given their experience in handling restricted material and the detailed schedule of protected persons.
6. The court considered Baroness Lawrence and others v Associated Newspapers [2025] EWHC 1716 and distinguished the different context. It also considered In re HMP [2025] EWCA Civ 824; the caution concerning open justice did not prevent partial variation on the facts of this case.

The judgment was a further hearing in the ongoing proceedings and was to be read with the earlier decisions reported at Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KB LB, Fatima and Others [2024] EWHC 3292 and Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KB LB Fatima and Others [2025] EWHC 1292.