Law360: Pension annuity sales in reached £7bn in 2024, figures published on 12 February 2025 by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) illustrate, marking a 34% increase on the previous year.

A declaration of the court that a marriage was not legally valid or had become legally invalid.

An order of the court restoring the Bankrupt to their pre-bankruptcy status, effectively treating the Bankruptcy Order as if it had never been made.

An order of the court which reverses the effect of a bankruptcy order so that it is broadly treated as if it had never been made.

This Practice Note looks at the annulment of bankruptcy orders under section 282 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and the grounds upon which an annulment application can be based. For further reading on the process of applying to annul a bankruptcy order, see Practice Note: The process of annulling a bankruptcy order The effect of a bankruptcy order being annulled The annulment of a bankruptcy order restores the position to what it was before the bankruptcy order was made, as it cancels the bankruptcy order. Therefore, the debtor will remain liable in full for all the bankruptcy debts, but any property which vested in the trustee in bankruptcy will revert to the debtor. Any sale or disposition of property comprising the bankruptcy estate by the official receiver or trustee in bankruptcy prior to the annulment of the bankruptcy order is valid. The grounds for applying to annul a bankruptcy order There are three grounds upon which the court can make an order annulling a bankruptcy order: • if it appears to the court that,

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 PPT v Independent Television News Ltd [2026] EWHC 2560 (KB) 9 October 2026 The judge considered applications for anonymity in respect of proceedings seeking to restrain the defendant media organisations from publishing serious allegations about the claimant. In respect of principles to note, the judge referred to the ordinary position that hearings are to take place in public, parties are named, and any judgments and/or orders are publicly accessible. The judge noted that identifying the parties is an important aspect of ‘open justice’.The judge held that it was strictly necessary for the claimant to remain

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.