An anonymity order is a court order to safeguard the identify of a person or a party giving evidence such as witness in legal proceedings by preventing their names and relevant information from being disclosed publicly. This order can be granted by the court pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules 39.2(4), which provides that “the court must order that the identity of any person shall not be disclosed if, and only if, it considers non-disclosure necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of that person.”
Nonetheless, the common law has a duty of fairness towards parties and persons giving evidence, and balanced that against the public interest in open justice so proceedings must be heard in public, subject to the specified exceptions. The court must be careful of creating exceptions to open justice by a process of analogy, except in the most compelling circumstance.
Anonymity orders are comprised of two parts: 1) withholding order and 2) reporting restrictions order. A withholding order is an order to withhold or anonymise the name of a party or a witness including any withholding information that would identify that person. A reporting restrictions order is an order to prevent the media or public from publishing any relevant information from the court case. These orders are designed to balance the principle of open justice with the need to protect the vulnerable parties who are fear of their identities being disclosed to public domain.
PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) -v- A Local Health Board” – This was a medical negligence case where an anonymity order was granted by the Court of Appeal. It related to a child (the claimant) who was admitted to one of the defendant’s hospitals and developed health problems. It was the claimant’s case that the negligence led to him suffering a cerebral palsy. Liability was admitted and a quantum-only trial was scheduled for 10 days in December 2025.
The claimant’s solicitors issued an anonymity application a day after being contacted by a journalist who had access to a copy of statement of claim and wanted to publish an article about the case. The claimant’s family had previously featured in articles about the claimant’s situation, but the claimant’s mother (acting as litigation friend) did not wish to engage with the media anymore.
In November 2024, the High Court refused to grant an anonymity order on the grounds that there was no statutory foundation for making a report restrictions order, in the absence of a withholding order, and the evidence did not support a withholding order being made in this case because the claimant’s family had already featured extensively in media coverage. Derogation from open justice was deemed unnecessary in this case. The claimant’s solicitors then applied for an appeal and their identity remained anonymous pending an appeal.
In August 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s refusal to grant an anonymity order and decided that the derogation from open justice was strictly necessary in this case in the interest of justice due to the extreme vulnerability of the claimant and the serious infringement upon the claimant’s private and family life in relation to medical details, family circumstances and financial matter, if the claimant’s details or identity were reported in the media. However, the Court of Appeal also added that derogation from open justice should not be strictly necessary if the evidence did not cover these features, and hence each case would need to be considered on its own facts.
The judgement of this case has provided a useful guidance to the law firms or practitioners that anonymity order can be applied for during and throughout proceedings, if required, even in circumstances where the family has been involved in previous publicity.
Comments