Court of Appeal adjourns hearing on anonymity orders

Court of Appeal adjourns hearing on anonymity orders

The Court of Appeal has decided to adjourn the hearing of an appeal concerning anonymity orders in child protection cases. The case, PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) vs A Local Health Board, was heard before the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice Nicola Davies, and Lord Justice Warby.

The appeal arose from a decision by Mr Justice Nicklin in the High Court, where he addressed the requirements for granting anonymity orders under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Senior Courts Act 1981. The case involved a balancing exercise between Article 8 and Article 10 rights, as outlined in the Re S [2005] 1 AC 593 decision.

During the proceedings, the court expressed interest in the submissions made by Nicola Greaney KC, who was appointed as an advocate to the court. She suggested that the court might benefit from awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in Abbasi v. Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Trust & Others, which could provide pertinent guidance on the nature of evidence required in such cases.

The court indicated that proceeding with the argument before the Supreme Court's judgment in Abbasi might necessitate reconvening or requesting additional written submissions. Therefore, it was deemed more satisfactory to adjourn the appeal until the Supreme Court's decision was available.

Robert Weir KC, representing the appellant, argued against adjournment, suggesting that the Abbasi case concerned different jurisdictional issues. However, the court decided that the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision warranted a delay.

The court also considered the written submissions from the Personal Injuries Bar Association (PIBA) and the Official Solicitor, noting that oral submissions from these parties could further assist the court. It was decided that a two-day hearing would be more appropriate once the Supreme Court's judgment was available.

In the meantime, the court recommended continued use of the model order PF10, commonly used in approval hearings, despite critique from Nicklin J. The court acknowledged the practical impact of this critique but suggested that practitioners and judges maintain its use until further guidance is provided.

The court's decision to adjourn reflects its commitment to ensuring that its judgment is informed by the most current and relevant legal principles. The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in Abbasi is anticipated to have significant implications for the jurisdictional issues at play in this appeal.

Learn More

For more information on medical negligence, see BeCivil's guide to Medical Negligence.