Emilia Idziak v Merlin Entertainment PLC & Anor
The claimant failed to demonstrate that anonymity was strictly necessary to protect her or her son's interests, there was insufficient medical evidence linking publication to harm, her son was not a party, and the principle of open justice outweighed her Article 8 and 3 rights in the circumstances.
- 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, Balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 Rights, 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 the proceedings
- 2 Whether the circumstances justify derogation from the principle of open justice
Ratio Decidendi
The claimant failed to demonstrate that anonymity was strictly necessary to protect her or her son's interests, there was insufficient medical evidence linking publication to harm, her son was not a party, and the principle of open justice outweighed her Article 8 and 3 rights in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Application for anonymity refused
Orders
- No order for anonymity is made for 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