Abbasi and another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

In proceedings about life-sustaining treatment for a child, the High Court may restrain identification of clinicians where necessary to protect the child, the administration of justice or a hospital trust’s statutory functions. Clinicians may also rely on their own rights.

Such injunctions should ordinarily expire after the proceedings and a short cooling-off period. Longer protection must normally be sought by the affected clinicians, supported by specific evidence. Human Rights Act 1998 section 6 does not itself create jurisdiction or permit a trust indefinitely to assert third parties’ rights.

Any restriction of expression must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate. Its need must be established convincingly. Permanent anonymity cannot routinely be conferred on public hospital staff.

These conjoined appeals concerned injunctions made during proceedings about the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from two gravely ill children. The injunctions prevented identification of clinicians and, in one case, a wider class of hospital staff. They remained in force after the children died.

The parents later sought discharge so that they could speak publicly about the children’s treatment and identify those involved. The NHS trusts relied principally on the clinicians’ rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Family Division refused discharge: [2021] EWHC 1699 (Fam); [2022] Fam 180. The Court of Appeal discharged the injunctions: [2023] EWCA Civ 331; [2023] Fam 287.

The central issues were the jurisdiction and standing required to grant or continue such injunctions, their permissible duration, and the proper reconciliation of privacy with freedom of expression.

1. Appeals dismissed unanimously. Lord Reed and Lord Briggs gave the leading judgment, with which Lord Hodge and Lord Stephens agreed. Lord Sales agreed in the result and generally with their reasoning. The Court of Appeal’s orders discharging the injunctions were correct, although its reasoning required qualification.

2. The High Court may grant injunctions contra mundum protecting clinicians’ identities where necessary to protect a living child under its parens patriae jurisdiction or to secure the administration of justice. It may also act on a hospital trust’s application where threatened conduct would interfere with the trust’s statutory functions under the principle in Broadmoor. Clinicians may seek protection through their own causes of action, particularly invasion of privacy. These bases may overlap: paras 100 and 182(1)–(4).

3. Human Rights Act 1998 section 6(1) is prohibitory, not enabling. It governs the exercise of powers otherwise available but creates neither a cause of action nor a free-standing power to protect absent third parties. Where domestic causes of action provide practical protection, an applicant should use them rather than rely simply on section 6(1) together with Senior Courts Act 1981 section 37(1): paras 83–100.

4. After a child dies, parens patriae jurisdiction cannot support continued anonymity beyond a reasonable cooling-off period. A trust may seek continuation under the Broadmoor principle only upon evidence of a continuing risk to its functions. Where continued protection is sought for clinicians’ personal rights, the clinicians or an appropriate representative should normally apply and provide specific evidence. Section 6(1) does not oblige the court to protect persons who could join the proceedings but choose not to do so: paras 102–113.

5. Injunctions made at the outset should be time-limited, ordinarily until the end of proceedings plus a cooling-off period measured in weeks rather than months or years. Protected persons must be identifiable from the order. They must receive notice of the order and of discharge or variation applications. Media organisations should receive notice of the original application: para 182(8)–(13).

6. The court must begin with domestic law. Convention analysis then asks whether interference is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society. Restrictions on expression must be established convincingly, answer a pressing social need and be proportionate. Changing circumstances and duration are material; permanent restraint requires compelling circumstances: paras 126–151 and 182(14)–(18).

7. Protection against unfounded accusations and abuse is legitimate. Nevertheless, hospital treatment is a matter of public interest, and public hospital staff are public figures for Convention purposes. Responsible personal criticism cannot be prevented as a class. Here there was no specific evidence of a real and continuing serious threat, while the parents’ expression concerned matters of public debate: paras 169–181.

8. The orders did not infringe open justice. The Haastrup hearing was properly private under the parens patriae jurisdiction. In public proceedings, anonymity may be secured by lawful measures directed to the particular evidence and hearing: paras 115–124.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: Dismissed the NHS trusts’ appeals and upheld discharge of the injunctions: [2025] UKSC 15.
2. Court of Appeal: Allowed the parents’ appeals and discharged the injunctions: [2023] EWCA Civ 331; [2023] Fam 287.
3. High Court, Family Division: Dismissed the parents’ discharge applications and the trusts’ cross-applications, leaving the existing injunctions in force: [2021] EWHC 1699 (Fam); [2022] Fam 180.