G v E, Manchester City Council & F

Judge: Baker J.

Citation: [2010] EWHC 2042

Summary: In a judgment that will be of particular interest to local authority solicitors, Baker J decided that it was appropriate to make public the name of the local authority involved in ongoing proceedings, which had been criticised in an earlier judgment. The judge concluded that he should name Manchester City Council in the spirit of openness and accountability, and because there was no significant risk that E or members of his family might be identified as a result, Manchester being a large city. He said ‘it is important that the residents and council tax payers of the city of Manchester know what has happened so that the local authority can be held responsible. And it is to be hoped that the publicity given to this case will highlight the very significant reforms of the law implemented by the MCA and in particular the DOLS in schedule A1, and the consequent very considerable obligations imposed on local authorities and others by the complex procedures set out in those reforms’.

The judge refused to make public the names of individual social workers because the criticisms he had made referred to failures higher up the chain of command, and refused to identify the company responsible for running the placement at which E had resided, since the company and its director had not been present at the hearing which resulted in criticisms being made, and since the concerns identified could properly be raised by the Official Solicitor with the Care Quality Commission instead.

CategoryMedia - Anonymity, Media - Court reporting, Media - Private hearings Date


Sign up to our Mental Capacity Law Newsletter

If you would like to subscribe to our newsletters please click the link below.


Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio


Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

Barrister Call CV Email