header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 August 2016 / Sarah Hughes
Issue: 7713 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family , Ancillary relief
printer mail-detail

Privacy at all costs?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Wyatt v Vince illustrates the growing trend towards openness of family proceedings, says Sarah Hughes
  • Considering the terms of the financial settlement reached in the high profile case of Wyatt v Vince and the court’s approach on the issues of privacy and costs.

The high profile and well known case of Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14, [2015] 2 All ER 755, involved a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that an ex-wife’s application for financial remedy claims made almost 20 years after the grant of decree absolute should not be struck out. Instead, the Supreme Court decided that the financial application should be listed for a financial dispute resolution appointment in the Family Division of the High Court and the financial claims decided on their merit.

This case was described by the court as “highly unusual” and has attracted much media attention due to the fact that Mr Vince and Mrs Wyatt were only in a relationship for just over two years between 1981 and 1983, during which time they

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll