Esper v NHS NW London ICB (Appeal : Anonymity in Committal Proceedings), Re (Rev1) [2023] EWCOP 29 (10 July 2023)

Esper v NHS NW London ICB (Appeal : Anonymity in Committal Proceedings), Re (Rev1) [2023] EWCOP 29 (10 July 2023)

COPR r21.8(5) prevails over PD 2015; the court must order non-disclosure of a party's identity only if the necessity tests in r21.8(5) are met. In most cases, including this one, those tests are not met for a defendant found in contempt. The judge was not obliged by PD 2015 to publish the appellant's name if COPR r21.8(5) required anonymity, but here the conditions for anonymity were not satisfied. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2023] EWCOP 29
Parties
Appellant: Philip Esper; First Respondent: NHS North West London Integrated Care Board; Second Respondent: AB (by his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (court of Protection, Committal Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal Against Decision Regarding Anonymity in Committal Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anonymity in Committal Proceedings, Open Justice, Reporting Restrictions, Practice Directions Vs. Rules of Court, Human Rights (article 8 and 10 Echr)
Court of Protection Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Anonymity in Committal Proceedings Open Justice Reporting Restrictions Practice Directions Vs. Rules of Court Human Rights (article 8 and 10 Echr)

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Esper

Appellant

NHS North West London Integrated Care Board

First Respondent

AB (by his Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (court of Protection, Committal Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal Against Decision Regarding Anonymity in Committal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was obliged to permit publication of the appellant's identity under the Practice Direction: Committal for Contempt of Court - Open Court, March 2015 (PD 2015)
  2. 2 Whether COPR r21.8(5) permitted or prevented the court from granting anonymity to the appellant in committal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the judge exercised discretion lawfully in refusing anonymity to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

COPR r21.8(5) prevails over PD 2015; the court must order non-disclosure of a party's identity only if the necessity tests in r21.8(5) are met. In most cases, including this one, those tests are not met for a defendant found in contempt. The judge was not obliged by PD 2015 to publish the appellant's name if COPR r21.8(5) required anonymity, but here the conditions for anonymity were not satisfied. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision to permit publication of Dr Esper's name as contemnor stands.
  • No order for anonymity of the appellant in committal proceedings.