RFV v The Personal Representatives of John Middleham (Deceased) & Ors
Disclosure of the MASH Letter and related documents concerning UJM is refused as the necessary threshold is not met and the interference with UJM’s Article 8 rights is disproportionate, now that her identity is known and the experts can proceed on that basis. Disclosure of safeguarding documents relating to the Claimant is ordered, as it is necessary and proportionate. Disclosure of YHN’s immigration documents and the Claimant’s social services records is ordered, subject to redaction of the identities of children and third party adults (other than the Claimant and YHN), as this strikes the appropriate balance between fair trial rights and privacy.
- Parties
- Claimant: RFV (by her litigation friend, TGB); Defendant/applicant: Personal Representatives of Mr John Middleham (Deceased); Defendant/applicant: Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited; Respondent (first Application): Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust; Respondent (second Application): Secretary of State for the Home Department; Respondent (third Application): Birmingham Children’s Trust Community Interest Company
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 April 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury (road Traffic Accident) / Interlocutory Applications for Non Party Disclosure
- Outcome
- Applications granted in part and refused in part
- Legal Topics
- Non Party Disclosure, Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Medical Records Confidentiality, Causation in Personal Injury, Anonymity Orders
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
RFV (by her litigation friend, TGB)
Claimant
Personal Representatives of Mr John Middleham (Deceased)
Defendant/applicant
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited
Defendant/applicant
Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Respondent (first Application)
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent (second Application)
Birmingham Children’s Trust Community Interest Company
Respondent (third Application)
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (road Traffic Accident) / Interlocutory Applications for Non Party Disclosure
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether non-party disclosure of confidential documents relating to third parties (including family members) should be ordered under CPR 31.17 and s.34(2) Senior Courts Act 1981
- 2 Whether disclosure is necessary and proportionate given Article 8 rights and the relevance to causation in a personal injury claim
- 3 Appropriate scope and redaction of documents to balance fair trial rights and privacy
Ratio Decidendi
Disclosure of the MASH Letter and related documents concerning UJM is refused as the necessary threshold is not met and the interference with UJM’s Article 8 rights is disproportionate, now that her identity is known and the experts can proceed on that basis. Disclosure of safeguarding documents relating to the Claimant is ordered, as it is necessary and proportionate. Disclosure of YHN’s immigration documents and the Claimant’s social services records is ordered, subject to redaction of the identities of children and third party adults (other than the Claimant and YHN), as this strikes the appropriate balance between fair trial rights and privacy.
Court Disposition
Applications granted in part and refused in part
Orders
- First Application (re MASH Documents): Refused as to UJM’s records; granted as to Claimant’s safeguarding documents.
- Second Application (immigration documents): Granted, subject to redaction of identities of children and third party adults other than Claimant and YHN.
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