header-logo header-logo

13 January 2017 / David Burrows
Issue: 7729 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Contempt & court proceedings (Pt 2)

nlj_7729_burrows

David Burrows discusses anonymity for children & others involved in family proceedings in his final article on contempt

  • ​When can the press or other members of the public attend court?
  • Open court: the general rule; but rarely in family proceedings.
  • “What’s in a name?” Transparency or anonymity for family proceedings?

In Appleton & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam), [2016] 2 FLR 1, [2015] All ER (D) 131 (Sep) Mr Justice Mostyn described the law about press attendance at family proceedings as “a mess”. If press attendance is a mess, so too is the law about attendance of anyone else; or for release of any documents from family proceedings; and as to when a hearing is in open court or not. In “Watchdog or wolf in sheep’s clothing?” Caroline East considered privacy in financial relief in Appleton and the earlier case of DL v SL [2015] EWHC 2621 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 114 (Sep) sub nom L v L (Ancillary Relief

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

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
back-to-top-scroll