This Practice Note considers the Transparency in the family courts publication of judgments practice guidance published by the President on 19 June 2024 and the anonymisation of judgments in different types of family proceedings. It considers the identification of parties in proceedings using information available on the Internet, even where the judgment of the Family Court is published in an anonymised form, so-called ‘jigsaw identification’ and the wording of the rubric in family judgments. Transparency in the family courts has been subject to a wide-ranging review. For details of the background, see Practice Note: Introduction to transparency in the family courts. The transparency reporting pilot in the Family Court is ongoing and was extended to take place in all courts from 27 January 2025. See Practice Note: Transparency reporting pilot in the Family Court. For details of when information can be communicated from children proceedings where Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 12 (Proceedings relating to children except parental order proceedings and proceedings for applications in adoption, placement and related

This Practice Note examines the law and practice in relation to anonymisation, pseudonymisation and privacy enhancing technologies (or PETs). In particular, it looks at the requirements for effective anonymisation and pseudonymisation and an explanation of some basic techniques that may be used. This Practice Note also provides an introduction to the area of technologies known as PETs. The Practice Note considers the position under the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR) and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). It does, however, consider EU case law and guidance where relevant to the position under the UK GDPR. For information on the position under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR), see Practice Note: Anonymisation, pseudonymisation and privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) in the EU. There are critical points of divergence between the position under the UK GDPR and the position under the EU GDPR on this particular topic. Note, on a general level,

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: This Practice Note reflects the current legislative position, however, note that certain elements will be impacted by the Digital Omnibus proposals published on 19 November 2025, pursuant to the European Commission’s ‘simplification’ agenda. For more information, see Practice Note: EU Digital Omnibus—tracker. This Practice Note examines the law and practice in relation to anonymisation, pseudonymisation and privacy enhancing technologies (or PETs). In particular, it looks at the requirements for effective anonymisation and pseudonymisation and an explanation of the basic techniques that may be used. This Practice Note also provides an introduction to the area of technologies known as PETs. The Practice Note considers the position under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) and guidance where relevant. Anonymisation and pseudonymisation The EU GDPR imposes obligations in relation to the processing of ‘personal data’ (being data that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual). The EU GDPR does not include a definition of

This Practice Note looks at the protection of the identity or anonymisation of a person in civil litigation proceedings under CPR 39.2(4). It considers when the court may derogate from the general principle of open justice in the context of applications for anonymisation, the courts’ approach to anonymisation applications and the form of anonymisation orders. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a person—illustrative decisions, which gives examples of the courts’ approach to applications for anonymity. Anonymisation of a person CPR 39.2(4) gives the court the power to ‘order that the identity of any person shall not be disclosed if, and only if, it considers non-disclosure necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of that person’. Prior to 6 April 2022, CPR 39.2(4) permitted the court to make an order for anonymisation only in respect of a party or witness. CPR 39.2(4) was amended with effect from 6 April 2022 such that the court is now permitted to order

The tables below provide examples of cases in which applications for anonymity of a person in civil litigation proceedings under CPR 39.2(4) have been considered by the courts. For ease of reference they are divided up into successful and unsuccessful applications. For guidance on the general principles that the courts apply when faced with an application for anonymity, see Practice Note: Anonymisation—protecting the identity of a person. Examples of the court granting anonymity Case details and analysis Judgment date Summary of decision Thorne v Protheroe-Beynon [2026] EWHC 1042 (KB) 6 May 2026 This claim did not feature an application for anonymity as all parties were identified in the judgment. The persons who were not identified were the defendant’s counterparty in underlying proceedings in the Family Division (possibly a spouse or partner) and the children whose welfare the defendant alleged that he was seeking to protect.The claimants were the defendant’s counterparty’s legal advisers of whose conduct the defendant was critical. In continuing an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from communicating directly with the legal advisers in derogatory

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court refused an order for anonymisation of a claimant’s name, and to impose reporting restrictions, when the application for anonymity was made the day before the judgment was due to be handed down following a public trial and was unsupported by evidence so as to justify an interference with the open justice principle. The court reminded practitioners to consider the question of anonymity at the earliest possible stage of proceedings, and to advise their clients accordingly. Written by Barry Smith, associate at Aliant Law.

Local Government analysis: This case concerned the parents of a child who appealed against a First-tier Tribunal’s (Special Educational Needs and Disability) (FTT) refusal to vary a reporting restriction order. The parents brought a claim against their child’s primary school for disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. On registering the claim the FTT made a standard order preventing the disclosure of information likely to identify the child. At the hearing the FTT upheld this order and dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim. Following appeal the Upper Tribunal (UT) varied reporting restriction orders made by the FTT and the UT to permit a child's school to be identified and provided guidance on the use of such orders in special educational needs and disability cases in the FTT and UT. Written by Tim Baldwin, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In a recent decision the Court of Appeal gave guidance as to how practitioners and the courts should approach requests for anonymity orders pending the forthcoming substantive decision in PMC v A Local Health Board. Permission was also given for the Personal Injury Bar Association (PIBA) and the Official Solicitor to intervene in the substantive appeal, when it is heard following the forthcoming decision of the Supreme Court in Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and others. Written by Sarah Prager KC, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has refused a class-wide anonymity order sought by 2,502 claimants in a data breach action arising from an alleged compromise of Ministry of Defence-related personal data. Mr Justice Saini held that the claimants had failed to provide the clear and cogent evidence required to justify a derogation from the principle of open justice. The judgment emphasises that data breach claims are not a special category for anonymity purposes and that broad assertions about security risks, privacy concerns, or distress will not suffice. Practitioners seeking anonymity in group litigation must provide claimant-specific evidence and should also consider narrower, targeted protective measures instead.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court held that a claimant, who had sought an interim and final anonymity order in respect of their claim, could not do so. This was (in part) due to the claimant's prior engagement with journalists which had led to articles about the claimant's condition, the subject of the substantive proceedings, previously being published and being publicly available online. The court explored the balancing exercise that must be undertaken when exercising their discretion to grant an anonymity order in respect of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), rights to a private and family life, and Article 10 ECHR rights to freedom of expression. It held that it was for a claimant to persuade the court that it should depart from the standard position that court proceedings should be public and so promote access to justice in favour of granting any anonymity order. In this, the court disagreed with the reasoning in the Court of Appeal decision JX MX, and preferred that of the Supreme Court in Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd, and that of the House of Lords in In Re S. Written by Iain Blackwell, associate at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

A service which prevents calls from being connected or put through where a caller has withheld CLI.

The GDPR regimes do not apply to anonymous data, ie ‘information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person’ or ‘personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable’. Therefore, truly anonymised data does not constitute personal data for the purpose of either GDPR regime. The ICO produced a code of practice in relation to anonymisation, which, although prepared under the previous Data Protection Act 1998, may still be useful. For more information, see ICO Code of Practice: Anonymisation: managing data protection risk