The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the hospitals’ appeals in these cases concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for children. There was no basis on which anonymity injunctions in relation to clinicians could be continued indefinitely. If anonymity is sought in such cases beyond a cooling-off period following the child’s death or withdrawal of treatment, the application should be made by the clinicians concerned. Such applications should be supported by specific evidence and the need for any restriction of freedom of expression must be established convincingly. Hannah Markham KC and Madeleine Whelan of 36 Family, Louise Sivey and Eloise Carey of Bates Wells, and Professor Carmen Draghici of the University of London comment on the judgment.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
Trade secrets and confidential information—protection and enforcementSTOP PRESS—Impact of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023: This document contains references to retained EU law (REUL) and associated terms introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in connection with
Are recorded conversations between lay people legal and can they be used in legal proceedings?The law relating to the recording of conversations between private individuals and the use of those recordings in court proceedings is a developing area. As a matter of first principles, there is no offence
When negotiating an NDA, does the choice of jurisdiction have to be in the recipient’s interests or can the disclosing party choose it?As a matter of principle, the choice of jurisdiction is a matter for negotiation between the parties.The purpose of a jurisdiction clauseThe purpose of including a
Confidential information, privacy and injunctionsSTOP PRESS—Impact of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023: This document contains references to retained EU law (REUL) and associated terms introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in connection with Brexit. From 1
0330 161 1234