PMC v Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB) - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers
13/12/24. Date of judgment: 6 November 2024
In PMC, the High Court provided instructive guidance on reporting restrictions in the clinical negligence context.
Background
The Claimant developed cerebral palsy as a result of the Defendant’s negligence at the time of his birth. Liability was admitted, and substantial interim payments had been made.
Anonymity Application
Prior to the quantum trial, the Claimant applied for restrictions on non-party access to unredacted documents from the Court’s records. In support of their application, the Claimant’s solicitors filed a witness statement that included articles which identified the Claimant’s story as an example of the human cost of poor standards of maternity care. Nicklin J held that, as a result of this media coverage “the Claimant is likely to be readily identifiable, particularly in his local area, as a very high-profile victim of medical negligence” (§23). The Defendant adopted a neutral stance regarding the application.
Judgment
Nicklin J conducted a comprehensive review of the authorities on open justice [§26-§33], the justification for derogation to the open justice principle [from §34 - §44] and anonymity orders [§45-§93]. Nicklin J proceeded to evaluate the factors in favour of and against granting anonymity in the instant case.
Factors in favour of anonymity [§128]: -
- The Claimant was a child (and the Courts recognise that derogations from open justice may be necessary to protect their interests; and
- The remaining phases of the litigation were likely to involve consideration of intensely private medical information.
Factors against grant of anonymity [§130]
- Significant weight to be attached to the principle of open justice;
- Pre-existing media coverage of the Claimant and the Claim; and
- Earlier phases of litigation have been conducted without any anonymity order having been sought or granted enhance the weight to be attached to Article 10 rights.
Ultimately, Nicklin J stated, at §133, that, as a matter of practicality, the prior decision to release information into the public domain precluded the possibility of securing meaningful anonymity for the Clamant. On the other hand, it was found that there was a “clear and continuing public interest in the Claimant’s claim going beyond the inherent public interest in court proceedings generally [§139]. Nicklin J rejected the Claimant’s argument that this was a limited derogation from the principle of open justice on the basis that it “fails to appreciate the impact of jigsaw identification” and the impact on future press coverage [§142].
Therefore, the Claimant’s application to impose restriction on reporting the case or identifying the Claimant was refused.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/2969.html&query=(PMC)
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Михаил Руденко