W v P [2025] EWCOP 11 (T3)

Judgment considering whether an application involving a public figure should be heard in private.

P used to be in the public eye, and in whose affairs there is likely to be natural public curiosity. He has severe dementia and lacks any meaningful cognitive capacity though his condition is not generally known to others outside his immediate family. The application was brought by his wife. The principal issue was whether a transparency order under PD4C should be made where the public interest would result in an intrusion on P's private life.

At [13] Rajah J comments

"In this case, a public hearing which identified P would inevitably result in significant publicity to satisfy public curiosity. That would be a serious intrusion in the private life of P and his family. For reasons on which I will not elaborate here, this could have serious consequences for P and his family. The "supposition" that a transparency order would protect P's privacy is, in this case, displaced. I am satisfied that it is not possible to craft reporting or other restrictions which would protect P's identity and the privacy of P and his family. There is a very significant risk of jigsaw identification unless the reporting restrictions (and other measures such as exclusion of the public from parts of the hearing) were so stringent as to make a public hearing meaningless. This substantially outweighs any legitimate public interest in this hearing being in public, even with reporting restrictions, and amounts to a good reason for the matter to be heard in private."

Furthermore, he notes at [14] that no judgment on the substantive application will be made published as it would need to be so heavily redacted it would make little sense.

Read the judgment on Bailii