header-logo header-logo

11 June 2009 / Rebecca Newitt
Issue: 7373 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

An unwelcome intrusion?

When is media attendance in court intrusive? asks Rebecca Newitt

The Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No 2) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/857) came into force on 27 April 2009. The new rules govern who may be present during a hearing in proceedings which are held in private.

The only exceptions to this, by virtue of r 10.28 (1), are hearings conducted for the purpose of judicially assisted conciliation or negotiations. This will, of course, include financial dispute resolution hearings.

In particular, the rules allow “duly accredited representatives of news gathering and reporting organisations”, in accordance with the UK Press Card Authority Scheme, to be present, subject to a power of the court to direct their exclusion from all or part of the proceedings for one of the reasons specified in r 10.28 (4). The media may be excluded where the court is satisfied that:
a) This is necessary:
i) in the interests of any child concerned in, or connected with, proceedings;
ii) for the safety or protection of a party, a witness in the proceedings, or a person connected with

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll