header-logo header-logo

Family courts: Transparency v Privacy

23 May 2025 / Beverley Morris
Issue: 8117 / Categories: Features , Family , Privacy , Divorce , Media , ADR
printer mail-detail
219532
Beverley Morris considers the issue of privacy in the operation of the family court, as well as the rise of non-court dispute resolution
  • The push for greater transparency, driven by judicial guidance, means more judgments are being published. While this serves open justice, it raises issues abut privacy.
  • To preserve privacy and avoid the pressures of an overstretched court system, clients are increasingly turning to out-of-court options such as arbitration, mediation, and private financial dispute resolution hearings.

The requirement for justice to be conducted within the public domain has always been an important principle. With the development of the law came the criticism that family proceedings were too often conducted with privacy and secrecy. This brought about a level of concern that did nothing to enhance the public’s understanding of the operation of the family courts.

In reaction to the criticism, the family court has taken steps to address the concerns. These have been phased in—for example, with access to certain hearings, information being open to accredited journalists,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll