header-logo header-logo

Privacy v publicity

28 January 2010 / Sarah Jane Boon , Tanya Roberts
Issue: 7402 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Tanya Roberts & Sarah Jane Boon ask whether the media’s gain will be at the expense of the privacy of the individual?

The Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (rule 10.28) were amended last April such that the media now has the right to attend most family proceedings, subject to the discretion of the court to exclude them in specific circumstances. At present, the media are permitted to publish details of the family court process, but they are prohibited from publishing the details of an individual case.

However, Pt 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill now proposes to set out more generous rules as to what the media can publish, having attended family hearings. Stage 1 would come into effect immediately, but stage 2 could only be implemented at least 18 months later, following a review of stage 1 by the Lord Chancellor, the conclusions of which would be laid before Parliament.

Stage 1

Currently, the starting point is that information relating to family proceedings cannot be published. However, there are three

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll