PMC v A Local Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 1126 concerned a teenager entirely reliant on the care of others whose health condition stemmed from injuries sustained during labour, and who had been the focus of media coverage previously. The case centred on the balance between the principle of open justice and the need to protect the privacy of individuals pursuing personal injury claims.
Greg Cox, CEO of Simpson Millar, which acted for interveners the Personal Injuries Bar Association (PIBA), said the balance was ‘a difficult one to strike.
‘We are delighted that the Court of Appeal upheld the principles that were set out in JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96 so that vulnerable clients can be protected and that the court resolved the uncertainty caused by the first instance decision in PMC.’
Cox said the ruling would provide important reassurance for injured people and their families.
The decision overturns the ruling of the High Court, where Mr Justice Nicklin found it impractical to grant anonymity once details of the claimant’s identity and medical history had already been reported in the press. Nicklin J distinguished Dartford partly on the basis these details were already in the public domain.
Delivering the lead judgment, however, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, said: ‘I do not think that the fact that there has been previous publicity is an automatic bar to the making of either a WO [withholding order] or an RRO [reporting restrictions order] in these types of case.
‘It is, of course, an important factor for the court to take into account.’
Carys Lewis, associate at Hugh James, which acted for PMC, said the decision ‘offers useful guidance for legal teams seeking to protect vulnerable claimants without unduly restricting press access or public scrutiny’ and ‘confirms that an anonymity order can be applied for during and throughout proceedings if required, and in circumstances where the family has been involved in previous publicity’.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=6e6975ed_1)
