header-logo header-logo

Under cover

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll