Anonymity Orders Update: PMC v A Local Health Board determined by the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has granted an anonymity order in PMC v A Local Health Board [2025] EWHC 1126 and affirmed the guidance in JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647, with some caveats, following an appeal from decision of Nicklin LJ the High Court.

The claim arose from a clinical negligence action brought by a child suffering from cerebral palsy, whose injuries had been caused by the Defendant. The Claimant had issued a claim for damages and a liability judgment had been entered by consent. A quantum trial was listed for December 2025.

In November 2024 the Claimant issued an application for an anonymity order in the standard form PF10, on the basis that: (a) he was unlikely to have capacity to conduct proceedings or manage his affairs on reaching adulthood, and (b) publication of circumstances giving rise to the claim, the interim payments and any ultimate settlement sum would be unjust and would infringe his article 8 rights. The Claimant’s circumstances had been reported upon in the media prior to the application, partly due some engagement with the media by his mother.

At first instance Nicklin J had refused the anonymity order sought on the basis that there was no statutory foundation for making a reporting restrictions order in the absence of a withholding order. He held that the evidence did not support a withholding order, because material concerning the Claimant and his claim was already in the public domain. Derogation from the principle of open justice was not necessary in this case.

The matter came before the Court of Appeal, with submissions from a number of interveners.

Regarding the power to make a reporting restrictions order, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was clear from the authorities that the court had an inherent power at common law to derogate from the principle of open justice in civil or family court proceedings by making a withholding order and a reporting restrictions order where such an order is strictly necessary in the interests of justice. This derogation can be deployed to protect the interests of vulnerable parties. In appropriate cases, it would be in the interests of justice to protect a party to proceedings from the painful disclosure of personal information about them where there was no public interest in its being publicised, and referred to the court needing to consider any risk of harm which disclosure may cause to the maintenance of an effective judicial process or to the legitimate interests of others, a power reflected in CPR 39.1(4).

Nevertheless, the Court must start from the position that very substantial weight must be accorded to open justice. The balance starts with a very clear presumption in favour of open justice unless and until that is displaced and outweighed by a sufficiently countervailing justification.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the guidance in JX MX in respect of applications for anonymity, with the following caveats. First, where an application for an anonymity order is made at an approval hearing, the application should be listed anonymously. Secondly, an application is required for an anonymity order in every case, and an order would only be made where the necessary threshold was met. Thirdly, evidence should be adduced in support of an application for an anonymity order, the content of which will depend upon the circumstances of the case. The circumstances of the case may be sufficient to make it clear where the balance lies, and the minimum steps that are strictly necessary to protect the claimant in the interests of justice. Evidence does not need to speculate as to future specific risks to the claimant.

In addition, where parties are aware that media or other non parties have published information about the case or shown a specific interest in doing so, those non parties ought to be notified of the application. In cases where no third party is known to have an existing interest in the case, the media do not need to be notified. The fact of previous publicity is not an automatic bar to making either a withholding order or a reporting restrictions order, although it is an important factor to be taken into account.

Those making applications for an anonymity order would be well advised to do so as early as reasonably practicable in the litigation process.

Whilst one has to understand the jurisdictional differences between making an anonymity order at an approval hearing, as was the case in JX MX, and in the course of litigation, the guidance in JX MX is broadly applicable in cases where an application for a withholding order is made (with or without a reporting restrictions order) in a personal injury claim by a child or protected party under the inherent common law jurisdiction of the court to protect the integrity of its proceedings in the interests of justice.

Applying the relevant principles to PMC, the Court of Appeal granted an anonymity order. The features which made such an order necessary in the interests of justice included the extreme vulnerability of the Claimant and the serious infringement upon the Claimant’s family and private life in relation to medical details, family circumstances and financial matters that the litigation involved. This was acknowledged to be a serious case. Every case will turn on its own facts.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee were invited to consider how PF10 (for approval applications) should be revised in light of the judgment.