Court of appeal upholds anonymity for injured children and patients – but questions remain 

The court of appeal has confirmed that children and vulnerable people can stay anonymous when settling personal injury claims.

This decision reassures claimants after a recent High Court ruling raised doubts about existing protections. 

On 25 February 2025, the court of appeal ruled that the principles from JXMX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] still apply. This means anonymity should be granted in these cases unless there is a strong reason not to. However, some uncertainty remains as legal debates continue. 

This means that anonymity should continue to be granted as standard practice unless a compelling reason dictates otherwise. The decision restores some certainty for vulnerable claimants, though lingering uncertainty remains as the legal landscape continues to evolve. 

However, the full appeal in PMC v A Local Health Board [2024] has been delayed until summer 2025. The final decision will depend on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust [2023], which could impact how anonymity is handled in future cases. 

Balancing open justice and privacy 

Open justice is a core tenet of the legal system, meaning court cases should be transparent to the public. However, cases involving children and protected parties present unique challenges, requiring courts to balance these principles against the right to privacy. 

Personal injury claimants who have suffered severe injuries often receive large compensation payments to support their long-term care. But unlike adult claimants, children and protected parties must seek court approval for settlements, with hearings typically held in public. If their identities were to be revealed, these claimants could face financial risks, unwanted attention, or even exploitation. 

To prevent this, courts have typically granted anonymity orders to protect their privacy. Many of these claimants’ compensation funds are managed by a Professional Deputy appointed by the Court of Protection, but anonymity orders offer an extra layer of protection. 

The PMC case and its implications 

The case of PMC v A Local Health Board raised new concerns about anonymity. Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimant could not be granted anonymity because the media had already reported details about their identity and medical history. He argued that an anonymity order would not be effective unless past news reports were deleted, which was not practical. 

This ruling raised alarms within the legal community, suggesting that future claimants could be denied anonymity if their cases had already been reported in the press. It placed an additional burden on claimants and legal teams to secure anonymity early in legal proceedings to prevent public exposure. 

To address these concerns, the court of appeal reaffirmed that anonymity should remain the default in cases involving children and protected parties. The ruling also stressed the importance of using the court’s PF10 form when applying for anonymity, ensuring consistency with the JXMX principles. 

Uncertainty still looms 

Despite this reaffirmation, legal practitioners remain cautious. The final resolution of the PMC appeal hinges on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abbasi, a case that, while not directly concerning personal injury claimants, could reshape the approach to anonymity in the courts. 

In Abbasi and the related Haastrup case, the court of appeal examined whether the high court has the authority to grant reporting restriction orders to protect the anonymity of medical professionals involved in complex treatment cases. Though these cases primarily focus on healthcare professionals, their implications could extend to the broader legal framework governing anonymity in the courts. 

The Abbasi case and a related case, Haastrup, focus on whether courts have the power to grant anonymity orders for medical professionals involved in complex treatment cases. While these cases do not directly affect personal injury claimants, they could influence future decisions about anonymity in legal proceedings. 

Legal community response 

For now, lawyers are advised to continue applying for anonymity orders using the established JXMX principles. The outcome of the PMC appeal, especially in light of Abbasi, could change how courts handle anonymity in personal injury settlements. 

For now, the court of appeal’s decision offers temporary stability. However, with further developments on the horizon, legal experts remain vigilant as they await a more conclusive resolution. 

Legal representation 

Simpson Millar LLP (Greg Cox and Edward Stansfield) acted on behalf of the Personal Injuries Bar Association (PIBA) in the PMC appeal. PIBA, as intervenors in the case, was represented by a team of leading personal injury and media counsel, including Emily Formby KC, Sarah Crowther KC, Anya Proops KC, William Latimer-Sayer KC, and Hannah Ready. 

Image credit: © Anthony M. from Rome, Italy – Flickr, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons 

Josie Geistfeld Josie is an editor for Claims Media. She welcomes feedback, comments, and opinion at josie.geistfeld@barkerbrooks.co.uk