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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll