Philip Esper v NHS North West London Integrated Care Board & Anor

Philip Esper v NHS North West London Integrated Care Board & Anor

COPR r21.8(5) prevails over PD 2015; the court must order non-disclosure of a party’s identity only if both necessity tests are met. In this case, the judge was entitled to find that the tests were not met for Dr Esper, so his name must be published. The judge’s decisions were correct in law and procedure.

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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (court of Protection, Committal Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal Against Publication of Contemnor's Identity
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Anonymity Orders, Committal Proceedings, Reporting Restrictions
Civil Procedure Mental Capacity Contempt of Court Open Justice Anonymity Orders Committal Proceedings Reporting Restrictions

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 15 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 Publication of Contemnor's Identity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was obliged to publish the contemnor's name under PD 2015 despite COPR r21.8(5)
  2. 2 Whether COPR r21.8(5) permits or requires anonymity for the contemnor in committal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the judge exercised discretion correctly in refusing anonymity to the contemnor while granting it to other parties

Ratio Decidendi

COPR r21.8(5) prevails over PD 2015; the court must order non-disclosure of a party’s identity only if both necessity tests are met. In this case, the judge was entitled to find that the tests were not met for Dr Esper, so his name must be published. The judge’s decisions were correct in law and procedure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Reporting restrictions order in respect of AB and other relatives to remain in force
  • Dr Esper may be named as Defendant and identified as a relative of AB