header-logo header-logo

23 July 2013
Issue: 7570 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Secrecy to end in family courts?

Munby proposes that most family law judgments should be published

In a landmark reform, family law judgments including custody, care orders, the rehoming of children and Court of Protection judgments are to be published unless there are “compelling reasons” not to do so.

The sweeping change is proposed by Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, who has issued draft guidance that would allow thousands more written judgments to be published. The identities of children would remain protected.

Sir James proposes that the “starting point” for family and Court of Protection cases be that judgments will be published unless there are “compelling reasons” not to. Where a judge authorises publication, public authorities and expert witnesses should be named unless there are “compelling reasons” not to, and anonymity should not extend beyond protecting the privacy of the families involved unless there are “good reasons” to do so.

It is currently a contempt of court to publish a judgment in a family court case involving children or a Court of Protection judgment unless the judgment has been delivered in public or the judge has authorised publication.

Writing in his latest newsletter on Family Justice Modernisation, Sir James says: “I am determined that the new Family Court should not be saddled, as the family courts are at present, with the charge that we are a system of secret and unaccountable justice.

“The law is highly technical and far too complex. The need for reform has been recognised for at least 20 years. Too little has been done.”
Joanne Clarke, solicitor at Lester Aldridge, said: “This is a huge step forward for family law.

“Any change which brings about greater public awareness in the court process and belief in the court system is welcomed.”

Sir James said the draft guidance will be followed by further Guidance and then more formal Practice Directions and changes to the Rules (the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010). Changes to primary legislation are unlikely in the near future.

Comments on the draft guidance should be sent to Sir James’ private secretary Alex Clark at Alex.Clark@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk by early October 2013.
 

Issue: 7570 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll