Tortoise Media v A Local Authority in Wales & Ors
[2024] EWFC 306 (B)
PMC v A Local Health Board
22 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2969 (KB)
High Court
A child sued a hospital for negligence. The family wanted to keep the child's identity secret, but the court said no because there were already news stories about the case. The court explained that while protecting privacy is important, open justice is also vital, and in this case, keeping the child's identity secret wasn't necessary or fair to the public's right to know.
Key Facts
- •Clinical negligence claim exceeding £10m.
- •Claimant is a 12-year-old child with cerebral palsy.
- •Defendant admitted liability.
- •Application for anonymity order made before damages trial.
- •Pre-existing media coverage identifying the claimant.
- •Media parties did not oppose anonymity but sought limited restrictions.
Legal Principles
Open justice is a fundamental principle, with exceptions only in exceptional circumstances.
Practice Guidance (Interim Non-Disclosure Orders) [2012] 1 WLR 1003
Derogations from open justice must be necessary and proportionate, with substantial weight given to open justice.
Various cases including In re S [2005] 1 AC 593, Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] AC 161
Anonymity orders have two parts: withholding orders and reporting restriction orders. Reporting restriction orders require a statutory basis.
Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] AC 161
Section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Section 39 Children & Young Persons Act 1933 provide statutory bases for reporting restrictions.
Contempt of Court Act 1981, Children & Young Persons Act 1933
CPR 39.2(4) does not provide a statutory power to grant reporting restriction orders.
CPR 39.2(4)
Section 6 Human Rights Act 1998 imposes a duty, not a power, to act compatibly with Convention rights. Section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981 may provide a power for injunctions in exceptional cases.
Human Rights Act 1998, Senior Courts Act 1981
JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647 is not authority for granting reporting restrictions under CPR 39.2(4) or without a statutory basis.
JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647
Outcomes
Anonymity application refused.
Insufficient evidence of necessity and proportionality; pre-existing media coverage renders anonymity futile; other measures could protect claimant's Article 8 rights without infringing Article 10 rights.