header-logo header-logo

Transparency in the family courts

19 November 2021 / Paul Linsell
Issue: 7957 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
64423
Paul Linsell asks whether proposals for increased transparency could have unintended consequences
  • The intimate nature of the disputes that arise in family courts make the balance of individual confidentiality and the transparency to the public a thorny issue.
  • The president of the Family Division has produced a roadmap on how to achieve openness and confidentiality.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division, published his much-anticipated report about opening up the family courts to greater transparency and reporting last month.

Entitled ‘Confidence and confidentiality: transparency in the family courts, it is clear from the outset that the recommendations set out represent a significant shift in direction for the family court. Many have referred to it as a complete change in culture.

Transparency & confidentiality

The report does not skirt around the difficulties in opening up the family courts to greater transparency. After all, how to manage the tension between doing just that while maintaining confidentiality for individuals has been the debate that has raged for

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
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
back-to-top-scroll