By Philippa Luscombe, Partner, Penningtons Manches
In personal injury and clinical negligence cases involving significant sums of damages and particularly for claimants with very severe disabilities who are protected parties, lawyers often need to consider whether anonymity orders are appropriate. This article provides a recap on where things stand with applications to the court for such orders.
The key guidance on this was set out in a Court of Appeal case decided in 2015 - JXMX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust. The case involved an infant claimant who suffered significant brain injury at birth and would never have capacity to manage her own affairs.
When the case came to court for approval of the substantial settlement for the claimant’s case, her mother requested an anonymity order. The approval judge refused on the grounds that he did not consider there to be any evidence of a real risk of harm from the settlement being on public record or from it being heard in open court (as is usual). The consequence of this is that the press is able to attend and report on the settlement and have access to the full details of the claimant and damages recovered. At the time, the usual procedure was for a claimant seeking anonymity to make a formal application and give reasons why such an order should be made, but in this case the judge did not accept the reasons as sufficient to justify the order.
The claimant’s mother appealed the decision on this point and the matter went to the Court of Appeal. There was a great deal of interest in the case and various representations were made. The Court of Appeal held that in future, when dealing with approval hearings of this type, the court should normally make an anonymity order without the need for a formal application unless the court is satisfied that it is for some reason unnecessary or inappropriate to do so.
The Court of Appeal found that ‘the court should be more willing to recognise a need to protect the interests of claimants who are children and protected parties, including their right and that of their families to respect for their privacy.’
This judgment means that in dealing with such approval hearings, a court will now normally make an anonymity order without the need for any formal application, drawn in such terms so as to prevent the publication of the name and address of the claimant, his or her immediate family and litigation friend. In order to ensure that the press still has the opportunity to report matters that are of public interest, it will maintain the right to attend any approval hearing. However, if the press feels anonymity should not be granted then the burden is on them to apply with reasons in support of the fact that such an order is unnecessary or inappropriate in that particular case. The Court of Appeal provided some helpful guidance as to the approach to be taken in such cases, summarised as follows:
▪ The application and listing of the hearing will normally reflect the claimant’s details unless an anonymity order has been obtained earlier in the proceedings.
▪ In open court hearings the press and public have the right to attend – and the press to report on the case.
▪ If an anonymity order is made by the judge, then the press can still report on the case and settlement – but not the details listed above regarding the claimant.
▪ Documents available on the court record are only accessible by non-parties if they are anonymised.
▪ The court should invite / hear submissions on the issue before granting an order.
▪ The default position is that an order should be granted unless the judge is satisfied by the evidence that it is not necessary – and if the judge does reach that view, it should be set out in a judgment with those reasons.
▪ In any event a short judgment on the point should usually be given.
Once in place, an anonymity order should ensure that the claimant’s personal details are never revealed, even if the case and settlement are reported in the press.
This guidance and position relate primarily to vulnerable protected parties with significant damages, but not exclusively. The case marked a significant step forward in protecting claimants in sensitive matters and clarifying the approach to be taken.
Philippa Luscombe
T: +44 (0)1483 411421
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Penningtons Manches LLP is a leading UK law firm which provides high quality legal advice tailored to both businesses and individuals. Its personal injury and clinical negligence team is nationally recognised and handles a broad range of cases, from those involving brain and spinal injuries through to delayed diagnosis and surgical errors.
www.penningtons.co.uk
