Article: Injunctions Contra Mundum, Jurisdiction, and Standing

A gravely ill child is in hospital. A medical view might be taken that, though tragic, it may be in the child’s best interests to die with dignity. The courts are asked to declare authoritatively the permissibility of withdrawing life-support. Should the courts also grant an injunction anonymising the child, or the hospital staff caring for it? How might this be justified? Does the court have jurisdiction to order an injunction imposing duties on the world at large? Who has standing to seek it? The Supreme Court answered these and other questions in Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust, on conjoined appeal with Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Trust [2025] UKSC 15; [2025] 2 W.L.R. 815. The judgment covers much ground, addressing inter alia open justice; the relationship between the European Convention of Human Rights and the common law; and whether doctors and nurses are “public figures” because they wear name badges. It is particularly noteworthy for the court’s extensive reasoning on “the law governing such orders—jurisdiction and standing”, on which this note will focus. These were “preliminary but essential’”, to be considered before any other aspects of the law.