Judgment, published: 28/10/2004
Items referring to this
- Judgment, 08/01/2013, free
- An application by News Group Newspapers Ltd to lift the prohibition on reporting the evidence given at a private hearing which would otherwise engage section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The application was dismissed but the judge ruled that the parents (not the child) could be named. Judgment, 04/10/2016, free
- In a tweet: Damages and injunctions in deceit, harassment and privacy breach claims Judgment, 11/04/2018, free
- Judgment, 15/01/2013, free
- Circumstances when an anonymity order should be granted in child support decisions Judgment, 22/03/2017, free
- Father was seeking an order that the oral permission hearing pursued by the Appellant mother shall take place in private. The judge ruled that proceedings be held in public but subject to immediate and continuing publicity protections so as to prevent withheld and prohibited information from being disclosed into the public domain without the permission of the court. There should also be anonymisation of the reporting of the identities of the parties and the child and any information likely to lead to the identification of the child. Judgment, 14/08/2014, free
- Husband was asking for an adjournment of this "extremely simple [financial remedy] case" which was refused. Mr Justice Mostyn explains his reasoning for anonymisation of financial remedy cases and ordered that the media should not identify the parties. Judgment, 16/09/2015, free
- The half-brother of a party to family proceedings back in 2002 was applying to have access to the original judgment from Singer J and to various experts' reports. The M was applying to be released from her undertaking not to communicate with the media with a view to displacing the findings made against her by Singer J. The half-brother was allowed access to a limited number of documents and the M's application was dismissed. Judgment, 30/05/2018, free
- Applications, in financial remedy proceedings, to exclude media from future hearings and for a reporting restriction order. Cobb J concluded that accredited media could attend private hearings but placed restrictions on disclosed financial information and the children's names. Judgment, 11/04/2017, free
- Judgment concerning whether a previous judgment in these complex private children law and related criminal proceedings should remain publicly available in the form originally published on Bailii even though it was possible to identify the parties using other information available on the internet. Judgment, 17/09/2015, free
- High Court prevents W from making public bare terms of her open financial offer to H Judgment, 19/01/2018, free
- Case note, 11/05/2011, members only
- A case heard by the President, Munby J, who granted a reporting restriction order, contra mundum, to prevent the publication of details of a child who was subject to care proceedings. The order prevented the naming, but not publication of images, of the child, nor did it prevent the naming of the social workers involved in the case. Judgment, 06/09/2013, free
- Judgment, 21/09/2012, free
- Follow up to the judgment in J (A Minor) [2016] EWHC 2430 (Fam) to consider whether or to what extent that judgment should be placed in the public domain. Judgment, 21/10/2016, free
- Judgment, 08/01/2013, free
- Judgment, 23/06/2009, free
- Judgment, 29/07/2010, free
- Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
- Bodey J considers whether to preserve anonymity of a family in financial remedy proceedings following application from the press. He decides that he should. Judgment, 26/01/2017, free
- In a tweet: Bodey J preserves anonymity despite the "strange" result Case note, 02/02/2017, members only
- Application for a reporting restriction order on the previous financial remedy proceedings. A reporting restriction order was made preventing the publication of any information relating to the proceedings save for the judgment. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
- In these Schedule 1 proceedings, mother wanted to be able to disclose to the Police and/or to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Financial Conduct Authority [FCA] the fact that the father lied in statements and on oath in these proceedings. The father worked in the financial services sector and his lies consisted of his initially not disclosing within the proceedings the fact that he had sold an enterprise owned by him and had received a sum of £111,000. The judge had to weigh up the rights and interests of the parties between themselves against the public interest and ruled that the injunction, which prohibited disclosure of the proceedings to third parties without the permission of the court, was upheld. The mother also lost her application to have this judgment published in a non-anonymised form. Judgment, 10/03/2014, free
- A case involving a mother on trial for fraud and whether or not a Reporting Restriction Order ought to be made to preserve the identity of her children. Judgment, 29/05/2013, free
- Consideration of a variation of a Reporting Restriction Order where the mother was facing criminal charges of fraud. Judgment, 29/05/2013, free
Published: 28/10/2004
Share