Court upholds anonymity for claimants

The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the right of children and protected parties to remain anonymous when settling personal injury claims, restoring a degree of certainty for vulnerable claimants after a recent High Court decision cast doubt on established protections.

The ruling, delivered on 25 February 2025, confirmed that the principles established in JXMX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] remain binding, meaning that anonymity should continue to be granted as a matter of routine unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.

However, the full appeal in PMC v A Local Health Board [2024] has been adjourned until the summer, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust [2023].

Open justice is a fundamental principle of the legal system, ensuring transparency and accountability in court proceedings. However, when personal injury claims involve children and protected parties, the courts must balance transparency with the right to privacy.

Claimants who have suffered life-altering injuries often receive substantial compensation, intended to provide lifelong care and support. Unlike an adult, a child (or patient) is required to seek Court approval; administered in public with everything said reportable.

If their identities are made public, there is a risk of exploitation, unwanted intrusion, and financial targeting. While many compensation funds are managed by a Professional Deputy appointed by the Court of Protection, historically, the courts have recognised these risks and granted anonymity orders to protect their privacy.

The case of PMC v A Local Health Board introduced new uncertainty. Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimant could not be granted anonymity due to prior media coverage of the case, determining that because details of the claimant’s identity, medical history, and circumstances had already been reported, an anonymity order would be ineffective unless past reports were erased—a move deemed impractical.

This raised concerns that future claimants could be denied anonymity if they or their families had previously spoken to the press, placing the burden on claimants and their legal teams to proactively seek anonymity from the outset of proceedings.

In response to this uncertainty, the Court of Appeal has reinforced that anonymity should continue to be the default position in cases involving children and protected parties. The judgment also emphasised the importance of using the court’s PF10 form when applying for anonymity orders, maintaining consistency with the JXMX framework.

However, legal practitioners remain cautious as the legal landscape continues to shift. The final resolution of the PMC appeal depends on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbasi, which could have significant implications for anonymity in medical and personal injury cases.

In Abbasi and the related Haastrup case, the Court of Appeal considered whether the High Court has the power to grant reporting restriction orders protecting the anonymity of medical professionals involved in serious treatment cases. While these cases do not directly concern personal injury claimants, their findings could influence the broader approach to anonymity in the courts.

Until a definitive ruling is made, legal practitioners are advised to continue applying for anonymity orders under the established JXMX framework. The outcome of PMC, particularly in light of Abbasi, could redefine how the courts approach anonymity in personal injury settlements. For now, the Court of Appeal’s decision provides temporary reassurance—but uncertainty remains on the horizon.

Simpson Millar LLP (Greg Cox and Edward Stansfield) acted for the Personal Injuries Bar Association (PIBA) in the PMC appeal. PIBA, as intervenors in the case, was represented by a team of personal injury and media counsel: Emily Formby KC, Sarah Crowther KC, Anya Proops KC, William Latimer-Sayer KC, and Hannah Ready.