Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP ) for the claimant; Martin Porter QC (instructed by Clyde & Co ) for the defendant.
The claimant brought a claim against the defendant for personal injuries resulting from her mother’s treatment shortly before the birth. The claim came before the court for approval of a settlement and the claimant applied for an order that the claimant be identified by letters of the alphabet and for an anonymity order.
At paras 13 and 14 the judge stated that advocates for claimants seeking anonymity orders commonly presented their submissions either on the footing that there was no issue because no media organisation opposed the application, or that any issue there might be was one between the privacy rights of the claimant and the freedom of expression rights of the press. However, that was not the right analysis. The question was whether the court should grant a derogation from open justice and from the rights of the public at large. The fact that no media organisation opposed the application or even the fact that there was consent to such an order did not relieve the court of its obligation to apply the law on open justice for the benefit of the public at large. Applying that test, the judge refused to grant an anonymity order but gave the claimant permission to appeal and granted an anonymity order until the determination or discontinuance of any appeal.