What’s in a name? High Court considers anonymity order in sensitive claim

14 March 2019 by

A rose by any other name?

In Justyna Zeromska-Smith v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 552 (QB) Martin Spencer J refused an application for an anonymity order by the Claimant, a woman who had suffered a stillbirth and psychiatric injury and was bringing a clinical negligence claim against an NHS Trust.


The Claimant became pregnant in 2012 but, tragically, the baby died in utero and was stillborn in May 2013. The Claimant claimed damages to represent the loss of the pregnancy and also for a psychiatric injury which she suffered due to the stillbirth.

The NHS Trust admitted that their treatment of the Claimant was negligent and that they were responsible for the stillbirth. The only issue in the case was the amount (quantum) of damages.

The application for anonymity

The Claimant applied for an anonymity order to prohibit press outlets from using her name. It would not have prohibited the press from reporting on the legal proceedings themselves.

The Claimant argued that this should be granted because the trial included deeply personal matters concerning her mental health, medical history and her relationship with her two children. Identifying her would inevitably lead to identification of her children. It was also added that, in the age of social media, she might face the risk of receiving abuse and that, given her Polish background, this might even extend to racial abuse.

Importantly, the Claimant was not a child or a ‘protected party’ i.e. someone who is judged by a medical professional to not have full capacity. But she was described as a “highly vulnerable individual.”

The resistance to the application

The NHS Trust took a neutral stance. However, the Press Association argued that although the Claimant’s Article 8 ECHR rights to private and family life were engaged the court also had to consider Article 10 – the freedom of the press.

They argued that it was exceptional for the court to grant anonymity orders in cases where the Claimant is not a protected party. They added that in such cases anonymity should only be ordered where necessary in the interests of the administration of justice.

Furthermore, they stated that they were signatories of the Independent Press Standards Organisation Code of Conduct which set out guidance on how to report responsibly on the issues raised by the case, and that the Claimant’s concerns about privacy would be met by following this guidance.

The judgment

Martin Spencer J refused to grant the anonymity order.

He began his judgment by emphasising the general principle of open justice. He noted that it was important for two main reasons: (1) to protect the rights of the parties and (2) to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

He then looked at the Civil Procedure Rules which emphasise that proceedings must be open unless privacy is necessary to protect the interests of party or for the administration of justice.

He also looked at two previous cases in which the courts had recognised that Article 10 does not just protect the substance of ideas and information but also the form in which they are conveyed.

In both of those cases it was acknowledged that being able to report the names of individuals makes a press report more compelling. Readers are more likely to be interested in the story; editors are more likely to give the story prominence; debate is more likely to be stimulated.

Martin Spencer J quoted Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] 2 AC 697 in which he said:

The judges are recognising that editors know best how to present material in a way that will interest the readers of their particular publication and so help them to absorb the information. A requirement to report it in some austere, abstract form, devoid of much of its human interest, could well mean that the report would not be read and the information would not be passed on.

The judge went on to distinguish the present case from other cases which the Claimant tried to rely on.

Notably, the Claimant tried to rely on ABC v St George’s Healthcare Trust [2015] EWHC 1394 (QB).  In that case, the Claimant was an adult woman with full capacity who was suing an NHS Trust over its failure to tell her that her father had Huntingdon’s disease – a genetically inherited disease. She claimed damages for ‘wrongful birth’, i.e. had she known that she carried the risk of passing on Huntingdon’s Disease to her child, she would have terminated her pregnancy. She wanted to protect her child from inadvertently finding out through the media that they had a 50% risk of carrying the disease. It was accepted that the child could suffer serious consequences if they found out.

Spencer J found that the circumstances of ABC were wholly different and exceptional from the present case. In particular, he noted that:

In the present case, the revelation of the matters personal to this claimant and her family are inherent and intrinsic to a claim of this nature, relating as it is to psychiatric injury suffered by the Claimant from the stillbirth of her daughter. Having chosen to bring these proceedings in order to secure damages arising out of that tragedy, the Claimant cannot avoid the consequences of having made that decision in terms of the principle of open justice and the consequent publicity potentially associated with such proceedings being heard in open court.


This short judgment raises a plethora of interesting issues but, from a human rights perspective, Spencer J’s recognition of the range of Article 10 is particularly interesting.

Most of the time, we talk about Article 10 as protecting the freedom of the press to publish what they want. However, we devote much less column space to discussing the freedom of the press to publish how they want. This judgment recognises that journalistic style is also protected by Article 10, as well as content.

Martin Spencer J’s judgment also recognises that the freedom of the press to write articles in their chosen style is not necessarily an end in itself but serves a greater purpose – when articles are written in an engaging style, and tell human stories, they are more likely to stimulate debate about wider issues.

There are plenty of examples in the press at the moment. An abstract debate around statelessness and the rights of returning jihadists would probably not have attracted the same level of public comment as when these issues were debated in the context of the story of Shamima Begum.

Similarly, it has been argued that debate around and reaction to the ‘hostile environment’ immigration policies was only truly sparked when the investigations into the human stories of the Windrush generation, such as Albert Thompson, emerged in the press.

Indeed, the lifting of anonymity has been crucial to the ‘Me Too’ conversation. Without passing any comment on the correctness of the decision to defy the injunction, the naming of well-known businessman Philip Green in the press arguably brought debate on the topic of sexual harassment in the workplace from the middle pages to the front pages of the newspapers.

So, what is in a name? Well, a case by any other name would perhaps not be quite so interesting.

Rajkiran Barhey is a barrister at One Crown Office Row.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: