This is an important case on “anonymisation” of approval applications involving children or protected parties.
Under CPR 39.2(d) a hearing may be in private if “a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or protected party.” In JX (which involved severe cerebral palsy) the approval hearing was held in public but the claimant asked for various orders to prevent any publication of her name. Tugendhat J declined but did direct that her address should not be disclosed and granted leave to appeal. Moore-Bick LJ, giving the judgement of the court, allowed the appeal and suggested that the principles set out below should apply. In essence, in approval cases involving severe injury, the court should make an anonymity order unless persuaded otherwise: see (v) below.
Napier Miles / 1st Mar 2015
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.