header-logo header-logo

Secrecy to end in family courts?

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

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The sweeping change is proposed by Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, who has issued draft guidance that would allow thousands more written judgments to be published.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Sir James said the draft guidance will be followed by further Guidance and then more formal Practice Directions and changes to the Rules (the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and the Family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Comments on the draft guidance should be sent to Sir James’ private secretary Alex Clark at Alex.Clark@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk by early October 2013.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

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
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll