header-logo header-logo

22 November 2007 / Grant Howell
Issue: 7298 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Window on the stars

How private should the family courts be? asks Grant Howell

The media spotlight focused on the  country’s divorce process in October, when the McCartneys sat down with their lawyers to thrash out agreement on ancillary relief claims linked to their divorce. The question of privacy in family courts is a topical one. There is no doubt that the current position is confused. Where matters are dealt with in either the county court or the High Court, they are protected from public scrutiny yet they become open to both public and press—subject to reporting restrictions at judicial discretion—should they reach either the Court of Appeal or House of Lords.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

There has also been much recent debate centred upon consultation papers issued by the government. The latest, Confidence and Confidentiality: Openness in Family Courts—A New Approach (CP 10/07), was published on 20 June 2007. The focus here is on matters relating to children, but the consultation paper recognises the family courts’ role in resolving financial issues and the far-reaching effects of

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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
Britain’s new acknowledgement that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, and accompanying settlement-goods ban and sanctions, is significant but overdue, argue Danny Friedman KC and Victor Kattan in NLJ this week
New planning fee rises, wider trade union access rights and a service-by-email trap feature in Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
back-to-top-scroll