Abbasi v. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Court of Appeal's orders discharging long‑running anonymising injunctions granted in family proceedings concerning withdrawal of life‑sustaining treatment. The court held that the High Court has jurisdiction under its parens patriae and inherent equitable powers, and by reference to Broadmoor principles, to grant contra mundum anonymity or injunctions at the outset of such proceedings where necessary to protect the child, the administration of justice or a trust’s ability to perform its statutory functions. However, continuation of such orders after the child’s death requires a proper legal basis and evidence: trusts cannot generally rely on section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 alone to vindicate clinicians’ article 8 rights once the parens patriae justification has ended; clinicians should assert their own causes of action (or be joined) and the court should be provided with specific evidence. Injunctions of this kind should be time‑limited (including a short cooling‑off period), identify the persons covered, allow liberty to apply and give affected clinicians notice so they can assert their own rights if needed.

The appeals arose from applications by parents, after their children had died, to discharge injunctions which had anonymised hospital staff and limited reporting in two high‑profile family cases concerning withdrawal of life‑sustaining treatment. The claims before the Supreme Court raised (i) whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant and to continue such contra mundum anonymity orders; (ii) who had standing to seek continuation after the proceedings ended; and (iii) how to balance article 8 and article 10 Convention rights when such orders were sought or continued.

Procedural history: the injunctions were made without opposition in the Family Division at interlocutory stages; Sir Andrew McFarlane P refused discharge applications at first instance ([2021] EWHC 1699 (Fam)); the Court of Appeal allowed the parents’ appeals and discharged the orders ([2023] EWCA Civ 331); the Trusts appealed to the Supreme Court and orders were stayed pending this appeal.

Nature of the applications: the parents sought permission to name and to criticise clinicians after the children’s deaths; the trusts opposed discharge chiefly on the ground that naming clinicians would expose them to harassment and abuse and so invade their article 8 rights and threaten the trusts’ ability to provide care.

Issues framed by the court:

• the legal bases (parens patriae, Broadmoor principle, clinicians’ own tort causes of action, and the court’s equitable jurisdiction) for making anonymity orders at the outset of proceedings;
• whether and on what grounds such orders can continue after the proceedings have ended (in particular after the child’s death);
• who has standing to seek continuation and what evidence is required; and
• how article 8 and article 10 should be applied in this context, including the role of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Court’s reasoning (concise): the court reviewed from first principles the availability of injunctions in these cases. It held that (a) the parens patriae jurisdiction and the court’s equitable powers permit contra mundum anonymity orders at the outset if necessary to protect the child’s interests or the administration of justice; (b) the Broadmoor principle permits a trust to seek injunctions to prevent interference with its statutory functions; (c) clinicians have domestic causes of action (eg misuse of private information, invasion of privacy, harassment) and should normally assert those rights themselves (or be joined) if continued anonymity is sought after the proceedings have ended; (d) section 6(1) HRA does not create a freestanding basis for trusts to insist the court continue orders to protect third‑party clinicians who could themselves be parties; and (e) because risks from publicity generally decline after the proceedings end, continuation beyond a short cooling‑off period requires specific evidence of a real and continuing threat and is likely to be of short duration (weeks rather than months or years).

Appeal dismissed. The court held that while the High Court has jurisdiction to grant contra mundum anonymity injunctions in proceedings concerning withdrawal of life‑sustaining treatment (under parens patriae, the court’s inherent equitable powers and, where justified, Broadmoor principles), the continuation of such injunctions after the child’s death requires a proper legal basis and specific evidence; trusts cannot rely on section 6(1) HRA alone to protect clinicians who are not parties, clinicians should normally assert their own causes of action or be joined, and orders should be time‑limited with a reasonable cooling‑off period and notice to affected clinicians.

First instance: Sir Andrew McFarlane P dismissed discharge applications ([2021] EWHC 1699 (Fam)); Court of Appeal allowed the parents’ appeals and discharged the injunctions ([2023] EWCA Civ 331); the Trusts appealed to the Supreme Court (this judgment: [2025] UKSC 15). The Court of Appeal’s order was stayed pending this appeal.