header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 November 2021 / Paul Linsell
Issue: 7957 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Transparency in the family courts

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll