We are a *knowledge business

In June 2024, HHJ Reardon sitting in the East London Family Court handed down her judgement in the case of G v S (Family Law Act 1996: Publicity) [2024] EWFC 231 (B), an interesting case concerning confidentiality in private family court proceedings.

Eleanor Wood of Lawrence Stephens acted on behalf of the respondent, instructing Maria Gallagher of Pump Court Chambers.

Prior to the final hearing, the applicant and respondent entered into Family Law Act proceedings in which no findings were made by the Court. The applicant’s position in this case was that he should be able to speak publicly, and in his own name about these proceedings and the evidence filed by each party. The applicant argued that family court proceedings, whilst heard in private, are not subject to any restriction in respect of publication and he is therefore free to speak publicly. It was also contended that should this be wrong, the restriction should be relaxed in this case because he wished to be involved in a documentary about domestic abuse and honour-based violence, which would increase public awareness and understating of this issue.

The respondent argued that there is an implied undertaking of confidentiality within family proceedings and further that her Article 8 rights to privacy outweighed the applicant’s Article 10 rights to freedom of speech and the wider public interest in publication.

In reaching a decision, HHJ Reardon concluded at paragraph 44 of her judgement “that the starting point is one of confidentiality”, and that the applicant would need to “seek the permission of the court to publish information about the proceedings.” Ultimately, she held that no findings had been made in Family Law Act proceedings, and that the respondent’s Article 8 rights did outweigh the applicant’s Article 10 rights, noting that it would be very difficult to ensure real anonymity. The applicant’s application was dismissed.

Eleanor Wood, Co-Head of Family at Lawrence Stephens and solicitor for the husband, commented:

“We are pleased to have secured a successful outcome for our client in a complex case which presented several issues which needed to be considered and dealt with at various stages. This highlights the importance of a well-prepared case to identify how the assets were used and where they originated when determining how they should be divided upon separation. The outcome is a fair one. It reflects the needs of the wife in conjunction with how the assets were used or matrimonialised, and that it is not always a simple sharing principle being applied.”

The full judgment can be read here.