CU -v- Chase Farm Hospital (anonymity order)

CivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: KB-2025-001396

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division

24 April 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Freedman

Between:

CU
(through her litigation friend, NU)

-v-

Chase Farm Hospital

Anonymity order

UPON HEARING the Applicants’ application to remove CU from Chase Farm to a hospital to access treatment due to deteriorating health conditions

UPON READING the documents submitted to the Court by the NU

AND UPON NOTING that there are proceedings in the Court of Protection involving matters arising out of substantially the same facts and matters as those referred to in these proceedings

AND UPON HEARING NU in person

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The First Applicant shall be referred to as CU and the Second Applicant shall be referred to as NU. The identity of the Applicants shall not be directly or indirectly disclosed to non-parties and these proceedings shall be known as ‘CU (through her litigation friend NU) and NU v Chase Farm Hospital’
  2. The Court file shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case in an order drawn up on 25 April 2025 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with accordingly.
  3. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this Order, provided that any such application is made on 2 working days’ notice to the parties.
  4. A copy of this order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR r.39.2(5). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk .
  5. Save as aforesaid, there shall be no order on the application.

OBSERVATIONS

  1. The anonymity order was because CU is or appears to be a protected party and the case concerns very detailed information relating to her physical and mental health. The anonymity order is made in respect of NU because her being identified would identify CU.
  2. The court gave a brief judgment orally in order to explain the decision to make no order.
  3. The Court was not satisfied that there were any reasonable grounds for proceeding without notice to the Defendant.
  4. In any event, it was not adequately explained what was the jurisdiction of the Court to act when (a) there were proceedings in the Court of Protection which may have been overlapping, (b) the usual court for the matters in question would in any event be the Court of Protection.
  5. The Court was concerned that NU should seek specialist assistance and provided to her various possible sources. NU must recognise that no responsibility whatsoever is accepted for any of the material provided to her of possible sources of assistance. It was made clear to NU that the Court does not and is unable to give advice to a litigant.

Approved:
Mr Justice Freedman
25 April 2025