header-logo header-logo

19 November 2021 / Paul Linsell
Issue: 7957 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Transparency in the family courts

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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