Family Law Hub

Judgment, published: 30/12/2010

Items referring to this

• X (A Child) (No 2) [2016] EWHC 1668 (Fam)
  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
• Bristol City Council v C and B and A [2012] EWHC 3748 (Fam)
  Judgment, 15/01/2013, free
• CA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and EG (CSM) (Child support - tribunal practice) [2017] UKUT 9 (AAC)
  Circumstances when an anonymity order should be granted in child support decisions Judgment, 22/03/2017, free
• DE v AB [2014] EWCA Civ 1064
  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
• DL v SL [2015] EWHC 2621 (Fam)
  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
• Norman v Norman [2017] EWCA Civ 49
  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
• W v M (ToLATA Proceedings: Anonymity) [2012] EWHC 1679 (Fam)
  Judgment, 28/01/2013, free
• Z v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWHC 1150 (Fam)
  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