Abassi judgement - does this mean more social workers will be named?

Zianab’s father and Archie Battersbee’s mother outside the Supreme Court today

The Supreme Court was in the news today, with the judgement on sex/gender.

The Supreme Court also ruled on an important case in the area of gagging orders (injunctions) preventing professionals from being named.

Known as Abassi, the case centred on a little girl, Zainab, who died in a hospital in Newcastle in 2019 and a little boy, Isaiah who died in King’s College Hospital in London in 2018.

Both children died amidst disagreements and court battles between their parents and the hospitals on whether life-sustaining treatment should be continued or not. Other families who have been involved in similar battles, including Archie Battersbee’s, attended the hearing.

As part of these legal battles, the hospitals obtained orders forbidding the parents to name the clinicians involved in Zainab and Isaiah’s care.

The parents applied for the injunctions to be lifted in 2020, but the President of the Family Division dismissed their applications. They appealed to the Court of Appeal which agreed with the parents that the injunctions should be lifted in 2023. The hospitals then appealed the Appeal to the Supreme Court, which today agreed with the parents. The Supreme Court also refused to extend the injunction for a further three weeks for the clinicians to take legal advice.

The reason the Supreme Court gave was different from the Court of Appeal - they ruled that since the children have passed away, the clinicians would have to apply for their own injunction, the hospitals cannot do it on their behalf.

This now raises the question, does this mean that in future, if a local authority tries to obtain an injunction on behalf of a social worker to not be named, the court will say the social worker needs to apply themselves?

Stuart Black

16th April 2025.