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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll