Skip to content

Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Legal Database

United States Code

  • Title 1. General Provisions
  • Title 2. The Congress
  • Title 3. The President
  • Title 4. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
  • Title 5. Government Organization and Employees
  • Title 6. Domestic Security
  • Title 7. Agriculture
  • Title 8. Aliens and Nationality
  • Title 9. Arbitration
  • Title 10. Armed Forces
  • Title 11. Bankruptcy
  • Title 12. Banks and Banking
  • Title 13. Census
  • Title 14. Coast Guard
  • Title 15. Commerce and Trade
  • Title 16. Conservation
  • Title 17. Copyrights
  • Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure
  • Title 19. Customs Duties
  • Title 20. Education
  • Title 21. Food and Drugs
  • Title 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse
  • Title 23. Highways
  • Title 24. Hospitals and Asylums
  • Title 25. Indians
  • Title 26. Internal Revenue Code
  • Title 27. Intoxicating Liquors
  • Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
  • Title 29. Labor
  • Title 30. Mineral Lands and Mining
  • Title 31. Money and Finance
  • Title 32. National Guard
  • Title 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters
  • Title 35. Patents
  • Title 36. Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations
  • Title 37. Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
  • Title 38. Veterans' Benefits
  • Title 39. Postal Service
  • Title 40. Public Buildings, Property, and Works
  • Title 41. Public Contracts
  • Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare
  • Title 43. Public Lands
  • Title 44. Public Printing and Documents
  • Title 45. Railroads
  • Title 46. Shipping
  • Title 47. Telecommunications
  • Title 48. Territories and Insular Possessions
  • Title 49. Transportation
  • Title 50. War and National Defense
  • Title 51. National and Commercial Space Programs
  • Title 52. Voting and Elections
  • Title 54. National Park Service and Related Programs

Read More

  • Home
    • About
  • UPDATES
  • Courts
  • Constitutions
  • Law Exam
  • Pleading
  • Indian Law
  • Notifications
  • Glossary
  • Account
  • Home
  • 2021
  • February
  • 11
  • FDS -v-Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust-10/02/2021
  • English High Court

FDS -v-Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust-10/02/2021

That a non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court file (other than this order duly anonymised as directed) without the permission of a Master or District Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant, and the Court will effect service. The file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymised”.
4 min read
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

FDS -v-Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (anonymity order)

10 February 2021

Claim No.: QB-2020-000658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

28 January 2021

Before: Master Sullivan

Between:

FDS (a Protected Party by his Litigation Friend, JHG)
– v-
(1) Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust,
(2) Dr Elizabeth Dawson (GP)

BEFORE Master Sullivan, sitting in the High Court remotely by telephone and in private pursuant to CPR PD 51Y (2) on 28 January 2021

UPON HEARING Mr Tavares, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel on behalf of the Claimant and Mr Thomas, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel on behalf of the First Defendant

AND UPON READING the Advice from Leading Counsel for the Claimant dated 23rd December 2020 and the documents referred to therein

AND UPON Wrigleys Solicitors having applied to the Court of Protection to be appointed as joint Property and Affairs Deputy for the Claimant along with the Claimant’s Litigation Friend.

AND UPON consideration of the Claimant’s Article 8 right to respect for private and family life and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

AND UPON IT APPEARING that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant.

AND PURSUANT to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section II of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C and 5.4D of the Civil Procedure Rules.

IT IS ORDERED:-

1. That the identity of the Claimant and of the litigation friend be not disclosed.

2. That the Claimant and the litigation friend be described in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings and in any judgment or order in the proceedings and in any report of the proceedings by the press or otherwise as “F.D.S.” and “J.H.G.”.

3. That the address of the Claimant and of the litigation friend be stated in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings as the address of the Claimant’s solicitors.

4. That in so far as necessary, any statement of case or other document disclosing the Claimant’s name or address or the name or address of the litigation friend already filed in the proceedings be replaced by a document describing such name or address in anonymised form as above.

5. That the original of any such document disclosing the name or address of the Claimant or of the litigation friend is to be placed on the Court file marked “Confidential not to be opened without the permission of a Judge, Master or District Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division”.

6. That a non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court file (other than this order duly anonymised as directed) without the permission of a Master or District Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant, and the Court will effect service. The file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymised”.

7. That reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant or litigation friend. The publication of the name and address of the Claimant or of any member of the Claimant’s immediate family or the name and address of the litigation friend is prohibited.

8. The provisions of this Order shall not apply:-

(i) to communications between the Court Funds Office, Court of Protection or Wrigleys Solicitors and the anonymised party or
Litigation Friend in relation to the payment of money into the Court Funds Office for the benefit of the anonymised party or the investment or treatment of payment out of such money;

(ii) to communications between the Court Funds Office, Court of Protection or Wrigleys Solicitors and/or the anonymised party or Litigation Friend and any financial institution concerned as to the receipt or investment of such money; or

(iii) to records kept by the Court Funds Office, Court of Protection or Wrigleys Solicitors or the anonymised party or Litigation  Friend or any such financial institution in relation to such money.

9. That any non-party affected by this Order may apply on notice to all parties to have this Order set aside or varied.

10. A copy of this Order be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR Part 39.2 and the Practice Guidance: “Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders” naming the Claimant and litigation friend as F.D.S. and J.H.G. respectively.


Related

Tags: Queen’s Bench Division

Continue Reading

Next: Cipla Limited v Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc [2023] EWHC 910 (Comm)

Indian Supreme Court Digest

  • Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint (SC-18/05/2023)
  • For passing order u/s 319 CrPC, ‘satisfaction’ as mentioned in para no106 of Hardeep Singh case is sufficient (SC-2/06/2023)
  • ISKCON leaders, engage themselves into frivolous litigations and use court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores-(SC-18/05/2023)
  • High Court would not interfere by a Revision against a decree or order u/s 6 of SRA if there is no exceptional case (SC-2/4/2004)
  • Borrower may file a counterclaim either before DRT in a proceeding filed by Bank under RDB Act or a Civil Suit under CPC-SC (10/11/2022)

Write A Guest Post

Current Posts

Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint (SC-18/05/2023)
15 min read
  • Criminal Procedure Code 1973

Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint (SC-18/05/2023)

For passing order u/s 319 CrPC, ‘satisfaction’ as mentioned in para no106 of Hardeep Singh case is sufficient (SC-2/06/2023)
8 min read
  • Criminal Procedure Code 1973

For passing order u/s 319 CrPC, ‘satisfaction’ as mentioned in para no106 of Hardeep Singh case is sufficient (SC-2/06/2023)

Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi (02/06/2023)
8 min read
  • Supreme Court Judgments

Ghanshyam Vs Yogendra Rathi (02/06/2023)

Indian Lok Sabha Debates on The Railways Budget 2014-15 (10/06/2014)
198 min read
  • Indian Parliament

Indian Lok Sabha Debates on The Railways Budget 2014-15 (10/06/2014)

  • DATABASE
  • INDEX
  • JUDGMENTS
  • CONTACT US
  • DISCLAIMERS
  • RSS
  • PRIVACY
  • ACCOUNT
Copyright by Advocatetanmoy.