Abbasi and another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Abbasi and another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

The High Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions protecting clinicians' anonymity during proceedings concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children, under parens patriae and Broadmoor principles. After proceedings end, trusts may seek continuation only if necessary to prevent interference with...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondents: Abbasi and another; Appellant: Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Respondent: Haastrup; Appellant: King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; 1st Intervener: British Medical Association; 2nd Intervener: Royal College of Nursing; 3rd Intervener: Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine; 4th and 5th Interveners: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Paediatric Critical Care Society; 6th Intervener: Free Speech Union
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Reporting Restrictions, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Parens Patriae, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Standing, Jurisdiction
Family Law Human Rights Law Medical Law Equity Injunctions Reporting Restrictions Freedom of Expression Privacy +6 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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbasi and another

Respondents

Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Appellant

Haastrup

Respondent

King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Appellant

British Medical Association

1st Intervener

Royal College of Nursing

2nd Intervener

Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine

3rd Intervener

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Paediatric Critical Care Society

4th and 5th Interveners

Free Speech Union

6th Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant and continue injunctions protecting the anonymity of clinicians after proceedings concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children have ended
  2. 2 Whether hospital trusts have standing to seek such injunctions to protect clinicians' privacy rights
  3. 3 Compatibility of such injunctions with the principle of open justice

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions protecting clinicians' anonymity during proceedings concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children, under parens patriae and Broadmoor principles. After proceedings end, trusts may seek continuation only if necessary to prevent interference with their functions; otherwise, clinicians must assert their own rights. Indefinite injunctions are unjustified absent specific evidence of ongoing risk. Restrictions on freedom of expression must be convincingly justified, time-limited, and proportionate. Permanent anonymity for clinicians as a class is incompatible with the Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Discharge of injunctions protecting clinicians' anonymity in both Abbasi and Haastrup cases
  • No new injunctions granted; clinicians must assert their own rights for continued protection after cooling-off period