PMC v A Local Health Board

PMC v A Local Health Board

The application for an anonymity and reporting restriction order is refused. The court finds that, due to extensive pre-existing media coverage identifying the Claimant, the absence of any prior anonymity order, and the lack of clear and cogent evidence of necessity, it is neither necessary nor proportionate to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR); Defendant: A Local Health Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Clinical Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Anonymity Order Prior to Quantum Trial
Outcome
Application for anonymity and reporting restriction order refused.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Anonymity Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Children in Litigation, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Civil Procedure Media Law Human Rights Open Justice Anonymity Orders Reporting Restrictions Children in Litigation Article 8 ECHR +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR)

Claimant

A Local Health Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Clinical Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Anonymity Order Prior to Quantum Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an anonymity and reporting restriction order in favour of a child claimant in a clinical negligence claim where there is pre-existing media coverage and no prior anonymity order was sought.
  2. 2 Whether there is statutory jurisdiction to grant a reporting restriction order under CPR 39.2(4), s.6 Human Rights Act 1998, or s.39 Children & Young Persons Act 1933.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an anonymity and reporting restriction order is refused. The court finds that, due to extensive pre-existing media coverage identifying the Claimant, the absence of any prior anonymity order, and the lack of clear and cogent evidence of necessity, it is neither necessary nor proportionate to grant anonymity at this stage. The court holds that s.39 Children & Young Persons Act 1933 provides jurisdiction but the threshold for derogation from open justice is not met. The Claimant's Article 8 rights do not outweigh the strong public interest in open justice and Article 10 rights of the media and public. Anonymity would be futile and would disproportionately interfere with...

Court Disposition

Application for anonymity and reporting restriction order refused.