Media Standing and Section 27 Anonymity Orders – High Court Clarifies Limits in Colbeam Ltd v Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council ([2025] IEHC 453)

1. Introduction

In Colbeam Ltd v Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council the High Court (Nolan J.) dealt with an application by Mediahuis – publisher of The Irish Independent and Independent.ie – seeking to access pleadings and to vary previously-granted anonymity and reporting-restriction orders made under section 27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”).

The underlying personal-injury proceedings (A and B v E, C and D) involve a second-named plaintiff who suffers from an undisclosed medical condition. Two High Court judges (Egan J. and Ferriter J.) had already granted wide orders:

• anonymising the names of all parties,
• prohibiting publication of any matter likely to identify the second plaintiff as a person with the condition, and
• directing the court-service website to hide the case file from public view.

Mediahuis argued that—consistent with constitutional principles of open justice and press freedom—it should be permitted to inspect the evidential basis of those orders and, if appropriate, to challenge their proportionality. The plaintiffs opposed, contending that section 27 is a self-contained statutory exception to the open-justice rule and that the media lack standing to “re-run” the application.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Nolan J. refused Mediahuis’s application in its entirety, holding that:

1. Section 27 of the 2008 Act is a “game-changer”: once the statutory criteria are judicially satisfied, the resulting order constitutes a lawful and final limitation on reporting.
2. The media enjoy no entitlement to compel disclosure of pleadings or medical affidavits in order to second-guess the court’s satisfaction of those criteria.
3. An order made under section 27 is not a “classic” ex parte order; therefore the usual right of a prejudiced third party to set it aside provisionally (per Anderson and Independent Newspapers v IA) does not arise.
4. Because the substantive trial will still be heard in public, the reporting restriction is a “minor and exceptional” curtailment that is not prejudicial to the administration of justice.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Gilchrist v Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2017] 2 IR 284 – Provided a seven-point framework for departures from open justice under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. Nolan J. accepted its continuing importance but emphasised that Gilchrist deals with situations “in the absence of legislation”, whereas section 27 now supplies express statutory authority.
• Irish Times v Ireland [1998] 1 IR 359 and Anderson [2006] IEHC 62 – Recognised media standing to challenge reporting bans in criminal cases. The court distinguished them on the grounds that they pre-date or do not involve section 27.
• Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd v IA [2020] IECA 19 and DPP v H [2020] IECA 321 – Stated that ex parte reporting restrictions are provisional. Nolan J. held these principles do not bite where an explicit statutory framework has been applied.
• Medical Council v Bukhari [2022] IEHC 723 – Demonstrated that even where legislation prescribes default privacy (s.60 Medical Practitioners Act 2007), the court may open the hearing. Again, the court distinguished it because Bukhari concerned whether a hearing should be in public, not anonymity arising from a medical condition.
• DF v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2015] 2 IR 487 – The “seminal” authority: the Supreme Court validated s.27 orders as a constitutionally permissible, narrowly-tailored exception. Nolan J. relied heavily on Charleton J.’s characterisation of the section as a “minor and exceptional departure” once the statutory tests are met.
• MARA (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice [2014] IESC 71 – Quoted by the Supreme Court in DF, affirming that the Oireachtas may legislate for privacy in “exceptional cases”.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Primacy of Section 27. The Constitution (Art. 34.1) envisages that justice be administered in public “save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law”. Section 27 represents precisely such a prescription. Therefore once the High Court is satisfied on evidence that:
   • the person has a medical condition,
   • identification would likely cause undue stress, and
   • the order is not prejudicial to justice,
   the constitutional requirement of openness is legitimately curtailed.
2. Nature of the Orders. Because the orders affect only reporting (and not the public nature of the eventual trial), they are “limited intrusions” unlike full in-camera hearings.
3. No Media Right to Re-hearing. The media cannot insist on disclosure of private medical affidavits. Allowing such disclosure would defeat the protective purpose of the statute and would, paradoxically, risk identifying the vulnerable person.
4. Distinction from Criminal Context. The ex parte principles in criminal cases arose where the court invoked its inherent power. Here, the legislature has already balanced the competing interests, leaving no lacuna for inherent-jurisdiction scrutiny by outsider parties.

3.3 Potential Impact on Future Litigation

• Media Strategy. News organisations must recognise that once a section 27 order issues, their scope to obtain underlying materials or to vary that order is severely restricted.
• Practice Direction for Practitioners. Solicitors and counsel representing vulnerable litigants now have clear authority that section 27 provides a robust mechanism—even where third-party media object—to secure anonymity.
• Judicial Approach. Judges may feel buttressed in granting such orders promptly, knowing that subsequent media challenges are unlikely to gain traction unless there is a demonstrable misapplication of the statutory criteria.
• Open-Justice Discourse. The decision sharpens the line between statutory and inherent exceptions, signalling to the Oireachtas that when it legislates with specificity, the courts will defer to that balance.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 27 Order

A court order in civil proceedings preventing publication of material that would identify a person with a medical condition, provided three statutory tests are met.

Inherent Jurisdiction

The power possessed by courts to regulate their own procedures where no specific statute applies. It is subordinate to any contrary legislation.

Ex Parte Order

An order granted after hearing only one party. Typically provisional and open to being set aside once the absent party (or affected third party) is heard.

Open-Justice Principle

The constitutional and common-law requirement that justice be administered in public, ensuring transparency, accountability, and public confidence.

Legitimus Contradictor

A person who has the standing to oppose or contradict an application—in this context, Mediahuis sought to act as such in respect of the anonymity orders.

5. Conclusion

Nolan J.’s judgment firmly establishes that section 27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 operates as a self-contained statutory exception to open-justice norms. Once a judge is satisfied on evidence that the three conditions are met, the resulting anonymity order:

• is final as between the parties,
• is not susceptible to collateral challenge by the media on proportionality grounds, and
• does not carry an implied obligation to disclose private pleadings or medical affidavits to third parties.

While the media retain a vital constitutional role, this decision clarifies that their standing is curtailed where the legislature has expressly balanced privacy against openness. The ruling thus provides guidance for future litigants, journalists, and judges alike, reinforcing that the “game-changer” effect of section 27 is here to stay—ensuring protection for vulnerable parties without sacrificing the public nature of the ultimate trial.