header-logo header-logo

23 May 2025 / Beverley Morris
Issue: 8117 / Categories: Features , Family , Privacy , Divorce , Media , ADR
printer mail-detail

Family courts: Transparency v Privacy

219532
Beverley Morris considers the issue of privacy in the operation of the family court, as well as the rise of non-court dispute resolution
  • The push for greater transparency, driven by judicial guidance, means more judgments are being published. While this serves open justice, it raises issues abut privacy.
  • To preserve privacy and avoid the pressures of an overstretched court system, clients are increasingly turning to out-of-court options such as arbitration, mediation, and private financial dispute resolution hearings.

The requirement for justice to be conducted within the public domain has always been an important principle. With the development of the law came the criticism that family proceedings were too often conducted with privacy and secrecy. This brought about a level of concern that did nothing to enhance the public’s understanding of the operation of the family courts.

In reaction to the criticism, the family court has taken steps to address the concerns. These have been phased in—for example, with access to certain hearings, information being open to accredited journalists,

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll