Sarah Whitten & Jamie Wilson consider the pros & cons of litigating in the public eye
Since April the media have been entitled to act, in Munby LJ’s words, “as the eyes and ears of the public and as a watchdog” (Spencer v Spencer [2009] EWHC 1529), albeit within certain parameters.
Although an initial outbreak of media attendance was predicted, the media’s interest has waned, except in respect of high-profile celebrity cases. There is, therefore, limited case law on which to draw guidance and the cases below provide an insight into the practical application to date of the recent changes.
Spencer v Spencer
Spencer v Spencer came before Munby LJ. The parties (both of whom are in the public eye) made a joint application to exclude the media from ancillary relief proceedings. Further to this judgment, practitioners should note the following:
Before exercising any discretion, the court must allow any representative of the media who is in attendance an opportunity to make representations.
The courts have jurisdiction to grant
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
