JF v London Borough of Hackney & Anor [2025] EWCOP 48 (T1) (23 October 2025)

JF v London Borough of Hackney & Anor [2025] EWCOP 48 (T1) (23 October 2025)

Discharging the Transparency Order would constitute a disproportionate interference with JF's Article 8 rights to privacy, given the volume and sensitivity of personal information before the court, her ongoing vulnerability, and the continuing nature of the proceedings. The interference with EF's Article 10 rights is justified and proportionate in these circumstances. The Transparency Order remains necessary for the protection of JF and the integrity of the proceedings.

Citation
[2025] EWCOP 48
Parties
Applicant: JF; First Respondent: London Borough of Hackney; Second Respondent: EF
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Application to Discharge Transparency Order / Post Final Welfare Order; Application to Discharge Existing Transparency Order
Outcome
Application to discharge the Transparency Order refused.
Legal Topics
Transparency Orders, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Proportionality, Best Interests, Anonymity Orders
Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Court of Protection Procedure Transparency Orders Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Proportionality Best Interests +1 more

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JF

Applicant

London Borough of Hackney

First Respondent

EF

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Application to Discharge Transparency Order / Post Final Welfare Order; Application to Discharge Existing Transparency Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Transparency Order restricting publication of information identifying JF and her family should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether maintaining the Transparency Order is a proportionate interference with EF's Article 10 rights to freedom of expression
  3. 3 Whether discharging the Transparency Order would disproportionately interfere with JF's Article 8 rights to privacy

Ratio Decidendi

Discharging the Transparency Order would constitute a disproportionate interference with JF's Article 8 rights to privacy, given the volume and sensitivity of personal information before the court, her ongoing vulnerability, and the continuing nature of the proceedings. The interference with EF's Article 10 rights is justified and proportionate in these circumstances. The Transparency Order remains necessary for the protection of JF and the integrity of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the Transparency Order refused.

Orders

  • The Transparency Order of 8 August 2019 remains in force.
  • The variation to remove the reference to the manager of the care home is set aside; the original wording is removed.