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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll