Family Law Hub

Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1

Judgment, published: 30/12/2010

Items referring to this

  • Judgment from The President concerning publication of judgments and applications for Reporting Restriction Orders. Although this particular judgment arose out of care proceedings, the guidance has wider application to all family cases. Judgment, 08/07/2016, 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
  • An anonymity order dated 30 June 2011 had been imposed following financial provision proceedings. The wife applied for the anonymity order to be extended or, alternatively, for the imposition of a fresh anonymity order to cover recent financial provision proceedings. The court held that in the particular circumstances of this case, such balancing exercise, if any, as the court was required to conduct, clearly came down in favour of the press and other media. A decision which refused to impose reporting or anonymity restrictions was a proportionate response to such entitlement as the wife may have to privacy under article 8. The application was therefore refused. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free
  • Judgment, 28/01/2013, 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

Published: 30/12/2010


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item