Allowing the appeal and stating that the court should normally make an anonymity order in such cases unless it is satisfied that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to do so:
(1) Approval hearings, like other examples of the Court exercises its protective jurisdiction, do not lie outside of the constitutionally important principle of open justice. The tension between open justice and doing justice in the case mirrors (in Convention terms) the tension between the Article 8 rights of claimants and Article 10 rights of the press and the public.
(2) However, the nature of this specific function means that the public interest in seeing justice done can still be accomplished without disclosing a party’s identity. Such hearings, although essentially dealing with private business, should generally be in public, and anonymity will usually be sufficient to protect claimants.
(3) The requirement to have settlements approved is peculiar to children and protected parties. Other litigants are free to settle claims in private, but children seeking to settle claims have no such choice. Under Article 14 ECHR child/protected litigants are entitled to the same respect for their Article 8 rights as other litigants. Withholding the name of child claimants therefore mitigates to some extent the inevitable discrimination between different classes of litigants.
(4) Orders under s.39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 will not usually be adequate, as they expire upon the child reaching the age of 18 (R (JC and RT) v Central Criminal Court  EWCA Civ 1777) and are not available to adult protected parties.
(5) In approval hearings under CPR r.21.10, the Court should normally make the anonymity order in favour of the Claimant without the need for any formal application, unless it is satisfied that it is unnecessary or inappropriate to do so. It is not necessary to identify specific risks in order to establish the need for protection.
(6) Such an order should prohibit publication of the name and address of claimants and their immediate families (and their litigation friends). The Press should be given an opportunity to make submissions before reporting restrictions are imposed. If anyone wishes to oppose an anonymity order being made, it must serve on the claimant a statement setting out the nature of its case. The judge should give a brief judgment explaining the reasons for the making of or refusal to make an order.