header-logo header-logo

Transparency rules, ok?

21 May 2009 / Geraldine Morris
Issue: 7370 / Categories: Features , Media , Procedure & practice , Family
printer mail-detail

Geraldine Morris outlines the recent rule changes arising from granting media access to family courts

Few areas of law are as newsworthy to the media as family proceedings. Following a concerted campaign by pressure groups and various government consultations, the family courts were opened to the media from the 27 April 2009. The media have quickly realised however that that access is subject to stringent rules.

Family proceedings courts

The Family Proceedings Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/858) came into effect from the 27 April 2009 amending the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 (SI 1991/1395) and the Family Proceedings Courts (Child Support Act 1991) Rules 1993 (SI 1993/627).

The amendments concern the attendance of persons, in particular representatives of the media, during proceedings in the family proceedings court relating to children, and the communication of information relating to such proceedings. The new rules insert into the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) Rules 1991 a new r 16A, which provides for who may be present during a hearing

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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll