PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v. A Local Health Board ([2024] EWHC 2969 (KB))

Parties Involved

• Claimant: PMC, a minor represented by his mother and litigation friend, FLR.
• Defendant: A Local Health Board.

Representation

• For the Claimant: Leslie Keegan, instructed by Hugh James.
• For the Defendant: TT, from In-house NHS Legal Services.

Hearing Details

• Hearing Date: 6 November 2024.
• Judgment Date: 22 November 2024.
• Presiding Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Nicklin.

Key Facts

• The case concerned a medical negligence claim brought on behalf of PMC, who had sustained harm allegedly due to the defendant’s actions or omissions.
• Late in the proceedings, the claimant sought an anonymity order to ensure that PMC’s identity would not be disclosed in court proceedings or public reporting.

Main Legal Issues

1. Granting Anonymity Orders:
   • Whether the court should grant an anonymity order under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
   • Balancing the claimant’s privacy and vulnerability as a child against principles of open justice.
2. Timing of the Application:
   • Whether the claimant’s delay in seeking the anonymity order impacted the court’s ability to grant the requested relief.
3. Precedential Guidance:
   • The application required consideration of established case law, particularly in relation to the procedural requirements for anonymity orders.

Observations

• Justice Nicklin reiterated the importance of early applications for anonymity, particularly in cases involving protected parties such as children.
• He acknowledged the competing interests of safeguarding vulnerable individuals and maintaining the principle of open justice.
• Procedural inadequacies in the claimant’s approach were highlighted, including the lack of a timely request for anonymity.

Decision

• The court refused the application for an anonymity order, citing the late timing and the potential for the identifying details already being in the public domain.
• Justice Nicklin noted that while protecting the privacy of minors is critical, procedural lapses and delays could hinder the court’s ability to grant effective relief.