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.