Anonymity orders in injury cases: new PF10 issued following PMC v Cwm Taf Morgannwg [2025] EWCA Civ 1126

John-Paul Swoboda KC analyses the judgment in PMC and updates practitioners as to the new PF10 form issued by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.

---

The judgment in PMC

On 28 August 2025, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos (with whom Warby LJ and Whipple LJ agreed) handed down judgment in PMC. The Court of Appeal upheld the earlier decision of JX MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96, which set out the approach for anonymity orders in PI cases, save that it was stated:

• An application for an anonymity order should be listed either as “an application under CPR Part 21.10” or by reference to a three-letter pseudonym (e.g. ABC);
• Although there was not specific argument on the terms of PF10 (the template anonymity order) elements of PF10 “seem inappropriate in the light of this judgment”. As such the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (‘CPRC’) were invited by Master of Rolls to revisit and update PF10.

With impressive speed, the CPRC have done just that and a copy of the updated PF10, taking into account what was said in PMC is available. I am told that the Masters have already been provided with the new version of PF10.

The Court of Appeal also clarified that:

• Those making applications for anonymity orders “would be well advised to do so as early as reasonably practicable in the litigation process.”
• The process of applications should be streamlined, but an application did have to be made to demonstrate that the derogation from the open justice principle by anonymity was strictly necessary.
• The evidence needed in support of the anonymity order depends on the context. There is no presumption in favour of anonymity and no special rule exempting the applicant from producing the best evidence in support of the application. The does not mean, however, that there should be speculation as to the future risk to the claimant should anonymity not be granted.
• The media do not need to be notified in advance of a hearing of an anonymity application (the rules requiring publication on the Judiciary’s website was sufficient and would allow a media organisation to apply to set aside an anonymity order if they so wished).
• Previous publicity will not be an automatic bar to the making of an anonymity order, but it will be an important factor. Each application for anonymity should be decided on its merits.

The legal dispute – open justice vs anonymity for protected parties

We, as personal injury practitioners, are unlikely to need often to delve into arguments about whether open justice should trump anonymity or vice versa, Nearly all of the time there will be no media interest and therefore, so long as there is sufficient evidence to support an anonymity order, it is likely to be granted (in the new PF10 form). But that does not mean we should forget or underestimate the importance of the open justice principle.

Lord Atkinson put it best in the foundational authority, Scott v Scott [1913]:

“The hearing of a case in public may be, and often is, no doubt, painful, humiliating, or deterrent both to parties and witnesses … but all this is tolerated and endured because … in public trial is to be found, on the whole, the best security for the pure, impartial and efficient administration of justice, the best means of winning for it confidence and respect”

Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 at 463

I would put it like this: there is no judge of the judges save for the media. So, for an impartial justice system which can command the confidence and respect of the public, there must be open justice save for in exceptional circumstances. History has taught us we ought not to take for granted an independent and impartial judiciary.

Whilst the Court of Appeal was at pains in PMC to emphasise the importance of the open justice principle, it also did make the point that there is no closed list of exceptions to the open justice principle, and that the principle itself may change in response to changes in society and in the administration of justice.

It appears that there has been a change in societal attitudes as the Master of the Rolls stated in PMC: Anonymity orders “…may also be made to protect a party to proceedings from the painful and humiliating disclosure of personal information about them where there was no public interest in its being publicised.” (at §108(iv)) That is a change from Lord Atkinson’s judgment in Scott that the painful and humiliating nature of hearing private matters in public was to be tolerated because of the open justice principle. If anonymity orders can be made to prevent painful and humiliating disclosures, the logical conclusion is that such orders may be applied for in many serious injury cases. Take, for example, an individual in a clinical negligence case involving damage to their urinary or sexual organs. Even if they are of age and capacity, it would be painful and humiliating to many to have such details aired in public, and it might be said there is no public interest in their identity being revealed. Might that give grounds for an anonymity order?

Conclusion

Many serious injury cases involve deeply intimate and personal details such that having those details aired in public would be painful and humiliating. Time will tell whether there is any willingness to stretch the boundaries of anonymity orders beyond the parens patriae jurisdiction (i.e. in respect of children and protected parties). It would be a very significant change if individuals other than children and protected parties could successfully apply for anonymity.

John-Paul Swoboda KC