Category:Anonymisation cases
Note that this is a relatively new website category and other anonymisation cases may still be in other categories.
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.
| Page and summary | Date added to site | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| Re SW [2017] EWCOP 7 —
Medical treatment, costs, anonymity (1) "[A]s matters stand, the transplant being proposed cannot proceed, whatever the court may say or do. As it has been presented to the court, this scarcely coherent application is totally without merit, it is misconceived and it is vexatious. It would be contrary to every principle of how litigation ought to be conducted in the Court of Protection, and every principle of proper case management, to allow this hopelessly defective application to proceed on the forlorn assumption that the son could somehow get his tackle in order and present a revised application which could somehow avoid the fate of its predecessor." (2) "As against the son, the claim for costs could not, in my judgment, be clearer. Given everything I have said, this is the plainest possible case for departing from the ordinary rule, set out in rule 157 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, and applying the principles set ..→ | 2018-03-28 | 2017 cases, Anonymisation cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases |
| R v Fuller [2016] EWCA Crim 1867 — | 2016-12-15 | 2016 cases, Anonymisation cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Sentence appeal cases |
| R (C) v SSJ [2016] UKSC 2 —
Anonymity (1) There is no presumption of anonymity in proceedings which are about the compulsory powers of detention, care and treatment under the 1983 Act: in each case the judge must decide whether or not anonymity is necessary in the interests of the patient. (2) On the facts, an anonymity order was necessary in the interests of this particular patient. Extracts from judgment: "The first issue before us is whether there should be a presumption of anonymity in civil proceedings, or certain kinds of civil proceedings, in the High Court relating to a patient detained in a psychiatric hospital, or otherwise subject to compulsory powers, under the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). The second issue is whether there should be an anonymity order on the facts of this particular case. ... The question in all these cases is that set out in CPR 39.2(4): is anonymity necessary in the interests of the patient? It would be ..→ | 2016-01-27 | 2016 cases, Anonymisation cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
| R (C) v SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1009 —
Anonymity The Administrative Court had not been wrong to refuse the patient an anonymity order in relation to his judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision about unescorted community leave.
<div class="medium-4 columns noexcerpt" ..→NoteThis judgment was finally published in 2023 after the Supreme Court secretariat had been asked about it for several years. External links | 2014-08-11 | 2014 cases, Anonymisation cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function |
Article titles
The following 4 pages are in this category.
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: