PMC -v- A local health board and others (anonymity order)

Court of Appeal Civil DivisionHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CA-2024-002798

High Court Appeals
In the Court of Appeal
King’s Bench Division

15 July 2025

Before:

Lord Justice Warby

Between:


PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR)

-v-

[1] A local health board
[2] An online publisher
[3] British Broadcasting Corporation
[4] The Officer Solicitor
[5] The Personal Injury Bar Association

Anonymity Order

UPON consideration of the anonymity order made at first instance, the order made by Master Bancroft-Rimmer and the hearing bundles lodged by the appellant

AND of the court’s own initiative

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT until after judgment on the appeal or further order in the meantime

(1) no copies of the full and unredacted copy of the judgment of Nicklin J (“the Private Judgment”) are to be provided to any non-party without the permission of the Court;
(2) the name of the Appellant is to be withheld in the appeal, and there be substituted for all purposes for the appeal in place of references to the Appellant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to “PMC”;
(3) the name of the Appellant’s Litigation friend is to be withheld in the appeal, and there be substituted for all purposes for the appeal in place of references to the Appellant’s Litigation Friend, and whether orally or in writing, references to “FLR” or “the Appellant’s mother”;
(4) the name of the Respondent is to be withheld in the appeal, and there be substituted for all purposes for the appeal in place of references to the Respondent by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to “A Local
Health Board”;
(5) the case number and identification of the District Registry in which the proceedings are pending is to be withheld in the appeal;
(6) in any document filed for the appeal, the parties to the appeal must ensure that material likely (a) to identify the Appellant or the Appellant’s Litigation Friend or (b) to undermine the effectiveness of the orders made in (2)-(5) above is not included in documents filed for the appeal otherwise than by way of confidential schedule (clearly to be marked as such);
(7) pursuant to s.39 Children & Young Persons Act 1933 (and subject to that section), no report of the judgment of Nicklin J that was handed down in public (“the Public Judgment”) or any appeal may include:
(a) the name, address or school of the Appellant;
(b) any particulars calculated to lead to the identification of the Appellant;
and/or
(c) a picture that is or includes any picture of the Appellant;
(8) the name of the First Interested Party be withheld in the appeal, and there be substituted for all purposes for the appeal in place of references to the First Interested Party by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to “An Online Publisher”;
(9) the Appellant must by no later than 4pm on 8 July 2025 prepare, file and serve appeal bundles amended as follows:-
(a) any updated skeleton arguments and written submissions served pursuant to the court’s first order of today’s date are included in substitution for the previous versions of the skeleton arguments and written submissions
(b) this order is also added;
(c) where a document included in the closed bundles contains information the disclosure of which would be likely to identify the Appellant or the Appellant’s Litigation Friend or to undermine the effectiveness of paragraphs (2)-(5) above the corresponding open bundle shall contain a version of that document redacted to omit that information but only that information (and paragraph (6) above shall be interpreted and applied accordingly);
(d) the pagination of any document contained in both the open and closed bundles is the same;
(10) all parties are to co-operate with the Appellant in the preparation of the amended hearing bundles to be provided pursuant to paragraph (9) above;
(11) a copy of this order shall be published on the judiciary website pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) but not before Monday 23 June 2025.

AND UPON this order having been made without a hearing and without inviting representations from the parties

IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED pursuant to CPR 3.3(5) and 52.24(6) that

(12) any party affected by this order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed;
13) any application under paragraph (12) above must be made by no later than 4pm on Friday 20 June 2025 and shall be considered on paper without a hearing unless the court directs otherwise.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity orders made at first instance do not bind the Court of Appeal; the correct procedure is to apply for an appropriate order at the time permission to appeal is sought and for a member of this court to consider and rule on the issue: Pink Floyd Music Ltd v EMI Records Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1429, [2011] 1 WLR 770 [66]-[68].
  2. No such application was made in this case, perhaps on the mistaken understanding that paragraph 5 of the order of Nicklin J below governed the position and was sufficient.
  3. As I consider that order was in substance a reasonable one which can in large part be adopted, and time before the hearing is short, I have not thought it necessary to invite representations before making this order.
  4. Paragraphs (1) to (7) are based on paragraph 5(1) to (6) and (8) of the order of Nicklin J and are materially identical. I do not think it necessary to reiterate paragraph 5(7) of Nicklin J’s order. I have not repeated his paragraph (9) as
    the present order is concerned only with anonymity and I see no reason why it should not be published on the judiciary website and every reason why it should. But I have postponed the date on which that is to happen, to enable the parties to make representations to the contrary. In the meantime, I have added at (8) an order anonymising the first Interested Party in a way similar to that adopted for the defendant, to cater for the risk of indirect identification.
  5. Paragraphs (9) and (10) of this order are new. They are intended to deal with two shortcomings in the hearing bundles which would be liable to cause difficulties at the hearing if not addressed beforehand.
    (1) The first is a point of substance: it appears that too much has been omitted from the Open versions of the bundles. Exclusion can only be merited where this is strictly necessary. As it seems to me, considerably more has been treated as confidential than can be justified by reference to Nicklin J’s paragraph 5 (now reiterated by me). For instance, the BBC’s submissions are headed “Confidential” and appear only in the closed core bundle. But, whilst there may be some identifying material in those submissions, there is clearly a great deal that could not be said to satisfy either of the exclusionary criteria that have been identified. The solution must be redaction not complete exclusion. Any written submissions that do not risk identifying the Appellant or otherwise undermining the purpose of the appeal should be made available via the open bundle. Similarly, whilst the order under appeal contains some identifying information (in particular in the title) there is no apparent reason why the public should not be able to view a redacted version of that order. Similar reasoning applies to the claim form and Particulars of Claim, and other documents.
    (2) The second shortcoming is a practical one. Some documents appear in both the closed and open bundles but with different pagination. Thus, pages 17-18 of the Closed bundle are the confidential schedule to the Appellant’s notice. The Grounds of Appeal are pages 19-20. In the Open Core Bundle the confidential schedule is omitted but the Grounds of Appeal are included, but they are at pages 17-18. This kind of pagination disparity looks apt to cause confusion. The solution is to omit from the open bundle any pages or documents that need to be excluded altogether for the reasons stated, whilst keeping the page numbering of the closed and open bundles in step. If that requires the inclusion of pages marked “deliberately omitted” or similar, then that is what should be done.