Spotlight on transparency: PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v A Local Health Board

Marisa Cohen, Doughty Street Chambers

In the case of PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB) Nicklin J handed down a significant judgment on applications for anonymity and reporting restriction orders.  The judgment applies in any case in which an order of this kind is sought but has particular application for those cases concerning children and other vulnerable parties – although not a family courts’ case, family law practitioners or children’s rights lawyers should have an awareness of it.

PMC sought orders for anonymity and restrictions on reporting on the basis of his age, his likely lack of capacity and vulnerability to exploitation.  Nicklin J noted that the litigation was likely to involve consideration of intensely private and medical information concerning PMC.  As explained below, PMC’s application was refused because the application had not been made at the outset of the proceedings and the purpose of the application was undermined by the amount of material about PMC and the claim that was already in the public domain, most of which arose as a result of interviews given by PMC’s side. 

 The guideline case of JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] 1 WLR 3647 was distinguished on the basis that, amongst other matters, the Court of Appeal’s judgment in JX and MX did not assist with how the Court should resolve the issue of pre-existing publicity about the case when considering any application for anonymity and reporting restrictions.

At the time of writing this article, permission has been granted to appeal