Idziak v Merlin Entertainment PLC & Anor [2026] EWCC 24 (30 April 2026)
The application for anonymity was refused because there was no statutory basis, the claimant's son was not a party, the medical evidence did not support necessity for anonymity, and the principle of open justice outweighed the claimant's Article 8 and 3 rights in the circumstances.
- Citation
- [2026] EWCC 24
- Parties
- Claimant: Emilia Idziak; First Defendant: Merlin Entertainment Plc; Second Defendant: Buckles Solicitors LLP
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 30 April 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Personal Injury / Application for Anonymity Order After Conclusion of Trial and Appeals
- Outcome
- Application for anonymity refused
- Legal Topics
- Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Reporting Restrictions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Emilia Idziak
Claimant
Merlin Entertainment Plc
First Defendant
Buckles Solicitors LLP
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Application for Anonymity Order After Conclusion of Trial and Appeals
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant and her son should be granted anonymity in civil proceedings after conclusion of a personal injury claim
Ratio Decidendi
The application for anonymity was refused because there was no statutory basis, the claimant's son was not a party, the medical evidence did not support necessity for anonymity, and the principle of open justice outweighed the claimant's Article 8 and 3 rights in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Application for anonymity refused
Orders
- No order for anonymity of the claimant or her son
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment