header-logo header-logo

Family courts: Transparency v Privacy

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll