PT-2025-000706 - [2025] EWHC 2928 (Ch)

These proceedings do not concern approval of a compromise under CPR 21.10. They do however concern a minor and information about the Child which is sensitive and for which the Child is entitled to privacy such that CPR 39.2(3)(d) is engaged. In this case the Child is not a party and so their name would not in any event be published in the cause list. However publication of the name of the trustees as claimants in the cause list might enable the adult members of the beneficial class to identify the Child. In addition the Child’s name appears in the evidence and there is other material in the evidence which would lead to identifying the Child even if the Child’s name were to be redacted wherever it was mentioned.

It seems to me that the same sorts of considerations apply to this case as apply to cases for approval of settlements on behalf of children. The Child is entitled to be protected from their personal information being released into the public domain in circumstances where there is no suggestion that that information is already in the public domain.

I have no issue with the order made by Deputy Master Jefferis, although it should have been published (at least in anonymised form) on the judiciary website.

It would perhaps have been preferable if an application for an appropriate regime directing measures to secure anonymity and privacy for the Child had been made at the outset either by separate application or by letter filed with the Claim Form drawing attention to the features of the case meaning there should be such a regime and asking that the Claim Form to be drawn to the attention of the assigned Master before issue for the matter to be considered. Such an application might then have been directed to be dealt with as a preliminary matter at a hearing which would, appropriately in these circumstances, have been listed in private and under the anonymised names of the trustees as the only parties and any order granting privacy been published on the Judiciary website.

As it has happened, the practical effect of Deputy Master Jefferis’ Order and the hearing on 29 September is that there has been a preliminary private hearing at which the appropriate regime for the case has fallen to be considered.

I do consider that it is appropriate to take steps to prevent the identification of the Child and thus protect the confidential information of the Child. That requires I make an order to anonymise the names of the Claimants and order that the court file remain marked “In Private” thus restricting the public availability of documents on the file. It is not however necessary for this Judgment not to be published and it may be of assistance to other parties considering making an application for a confidentiality regime if it is published. In addition, it seems to me highly likely that a judgment following the full hearing of this application should be published given the public importance of the substantive issue.

I consider that the correct course going forward is: