Written by Carys Lewis, Associate in our Clinical Negligence team.
We welcome the judgment from the Court of Appeal in the case of PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v A local health board. The Court of Appeal has reached the clear conclusion that a prospective (rather than retrospective) anonymity order should be given in this case and that the Judge at first instance was wrong to reject the common law power to grant an anonymity order.
The decision marks a significant affirmation of the importance of protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals – particularly children and others considered to lack capacity to conduct the litigation – within the justice system.
The Court recognised the sensitive nature of the medical information involved in this case, as well as the ongoing impact of publicity on the young Claimant and their family. By granting anonymity, the Court has struck an appropriate balance between open justice and protecting the Claimant in the interests of justice.
This outcome will provide much-needed reassurance to families navigating similar legal challenges, particularly in clinical negligence claims involving children or persons who may lack capacity.
The judgment also offers helpful guidance to legal professionals seeking anonymity orders at settlement approval hearings and confirms that the position, as set out in the JXMX v Dartford judgment, remains good law.
We remain committed to pursuing justice on behalf of PMC and will continue to act in the child’s best interests as the substantive claim progresses.
In response to today’s judgment, Carys Lewis, Associate in our Clinical Negligence team, said:
“We are pleased the Court has recognised the need to protect a vulnerable child in this sensitive case. The decision offers useful guidance for legal teams seeking to protect vulnerable Claimants without unduly restricting press access or public scrutiny. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that providing a prospective anonymity order in this case will not prevent the media reporting on matters of public interest arising from the litigation, instead these details and details of any settlement can be published but without the Claimant being identified. The balance that the Court of Appeal has struck is welcomed in this case and provides useful guidance to practitioners seeking anonymity orders in the future.
The judgment also confirms that an anonymity order can be applied for during and throughout proceedings if required, and in circumstances where the family has been involved in previous publicity. The Court of Appeal emphasised that whether derogation from open justice is appropriate will depend on the facts of each individual case.
We’re proud to be at the forefront of this issue, ensuring that protected parties are provided with appropriate protection throughout litigation. We hope this ruling provides much-needed clarity for civil litigation practitioners, so that sensitive details regarding a Claimant’s medical condition, care needs, and financial settlement can be reported if it is in the public interest to do so, but will not be linked back to the Claimant, therefore protecting them and their family.”
The Claimant was represented in this case by Robert Weir KC of Devereux Chambers and Robert Oldham of 12 KBW, instructed by Stephen Webber, Partner in our Clinical Negligence team, and Carys Lewis, Associate in our Clinical Negligence team.
