header-logo header-logo

08 May 2015 / Karen O’Sullivan
Issue: 7651 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Under cover

nlj_may_8_osullivan

Karen O’Sullivan examines the level of anonymity afforded to a child or protected party

To what extent is a child or other protected party entitled to an order protecting his or her anonymity? The Court of Appeal considered this question in JX MX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96, [2015] All ER (D) 180 (Feb) following intervention by the Personal Injury Bar Association and the Press Association.

The infant approval proceedings arose from injuries caused by clinical negligence during the claimant’s birth meaning that she would always require the protection of the court, although at the time of the hearing she was still only six years’ old. The claimant’s litigation friend, her mother, sought anonymity for the claimant, ie an order preventing the press from identifying the claimant. Mr Justice Tugendhat reviewed what he considered to be a “formulaic” witness statement from her which evidenced no special circumstances requiring an anonymity order, that is to say that there was no particular reason to consider that the claimant would be specifically vulnerable

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll