Anonymity in Birth Brain Injury Claims: Protecting Children and Families

When and Why Families Seek Anonymity in Birth Brain Injury Claims

Cases involving severe birth-related brain injuries often attract public attention, particularly where substantial compensation is approved to fund lifelong care. While the principle of open justice means court hearings are usually public, families caring for children with profound needs may face additional distress and risk if their identities become known.

English courts have long recognised the need to balance transparency with the welfare and privacy of children and protected parties. Following a recent successful application for reporting restrictions, this article provides up-to-date guidance on why families seek reporting restrictions, the current legal framework, and how to make a robust application, including the use of the updated PF10 order.

Why families apply for reporting restrictions

Protecting a child’s privacy and long-term welfare

Children who have sustained brain injuries at birth will often never be able to consent to publicity about their lives. Publishing identifying details can expose families to unwanted attention, online intrusion, or media approaches — impacts that may follow a child for decades. The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that, in settlement approval hearings involving children and protected parties, anonymity will usually be appropriate unless there is a clear reason not to grant it.

Preventing “jigsaw identification”

Even where names are withheld, a combination of details — such as medical history, location, school, or care provider — can allow a child to be identified. Courts are increasingly alive to this risk and expect applications to address how fragmented information could still reveal a family’s identity.

Reducing distress and safeguarding risks

Public reporting of approval hearings or large damages awards can destabilise care arrangements, attract online harassment, or compromise safeguarding. While courts approach restrictions with caution, they recognise that these risks are very real for families caring for highly vulnerable children.

The Legal Framework: Open Justice and Its Limits

Open justice as the starting point

Under CPR 39.2, civil hearings are generally held in public. Any departure from this principle must be justified and proportionate.

Children and protected parties at approval hearings

In JXMX v Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust [2015], the Court of Appeal confirmed that anonymity will normally be appropriate where the court is approving a settlement for a child or protected party, unless it is unnecessary or inappropriate. This remains a cornerstone of clinical negligence and personal injury cases involving children.

The impact of PMC (2025)

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed JXMX but emphasised that reporting restrictions must be principled and carefully tailored. Courts should not apply standard forms mechanistically, and practitioners must justify the scope of any order sought.

Statutory publication restrictions

Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 allows the court to prohibit publication of information withheld during proceedings where necessary to give effect to that decision. This sits alongside the court’s common law and CPR powers.

Transparency requirements

Under the 2019 Practice Guidance, privacy and anonymity orders are generally published on the judiciary website. Draft orders must therefore avoid including any identifying information.

The PF10 Anonymity Order: What Families Should Know

The PF10 is the standard template used for anonymity and publication restriction orders in cases involving children and protected parties. The latest version, approved in October 2025, places greater emphasis on:

• Prospective (not automatic retrospective) effect
• Clear definitions of what counts as “publication”
• Tailored restrictions rather than blanket bans

Courts now expect practitioners to use PF10 as a starting point, not an entitlement.

What the Court Will Expect to See

A clear legal basis

Applicants should identify whether they rely on CPR 39.2(4), section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, or both, and explain why each is required.

Evidence of risk

The court will expect specific evidence showing how identification could harm the child, including welfare, safeguarding or online risks. While JXMX and PMC support a protective approach, individual facts remain important.

Proportionate drafting

Orders must go no further than necessary. This usually means preventing identification while allowing non-identifying reporting of issues, outcomes and lessons learned.

Duration and review

In many cases, anonymity will need to continue indefinitely, particularly where a child is likely to remain a protected party into adulthood. Where appropriate, the court may consider review provisions.

How an Application Is Made

Timing and procedure

Applications can be made when issuing proceedings or alongside a settlement approval application under CPR 21.10. Where press interest is anticipated, it may be appropriate to apply in advance.

Evidence and submissions

Typically, this includes a witness statement explaining the child’s condition, care arrangements, schooling, and risks arising from identification, alongside short legal submissions referencing JXMX and PMC.

Drafting the order

The PF10 template should be carefully adapted to the case, defining who is protected, what information is restricted, and which disclosures remain permitted (for example, to insurers or medical professionals).

Practical Tips Following Recent Case Law

• Avoid overly broad restrictions — courts expect precision
• Explain how identification could occur, not just that it might
• Remember that social media users are bound by the same rules as publishers
• Where lifelong protection is sought, link this clearly to capacity and welfare evidence

Contact an expert

Families involved in birth brain injury claims often have understandable concerns about privacy and media intrusion. Our specialist team can advise on anonymity, reporting restrictions and the use of PF10 orders, and can make applications on your behalf where appropriate.

Get in touch to speak to us confidentially.

0151 306 3694 ab@phoenixlegalsolicitors.co.uk

Frequently Asked Questions