Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

James Copson: Common Sense Prevails

Sep 29, 2018, 18:29 PM
Slug : JamesCopsonCommonSensePrevails-091012-963
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 9, 2012, 05:40 AM
Article ID : 100485

James CopsonThe recent, anonymised judgment in A v A [2012] has come as a welcome relief to divorcing spouses, and to professionals involved in financial remedy proceedings. Individuals' private financial affairs revealed under compulsion through the courts can now ordinarily expect to remain confidential.

 Although financial remedy proceedings are heard in private, the media can attend all such proceedings (except FDRs) and will not be excluded from them unless a Rule 27.11 exception applies. Those exceptions are that exclusion is appropriate in the interests of a child, for the safety or protection of a party, a witness or other connected person, for the orderly conduct of proceedings or in case justice will otherwise be impeded or prejudiced.

 However, the decision in A v A, whilst emphasising the importance of open justice following the opening of the family courts to the media in 2009, made it clear that the role of the media will usually be limited to that of the public's watchdog, reporting only on how the family justice system works and raising awareness as to how decisions are reached. In this case the District Judge allowed the media to attend the final hearing, but imposed a reporting ban pending the financial remedy judgment. In fact, no judgment was necessary as the parties were able to reach agreement before it was handed down.

The decision is to be welcomed. It preserves the implied undertaking of confidentiality allowing parties to reveal otherwise sensitive information in financial remedy proceedings without the fear that such disclosure then becomes exposed to public scrutiny. This means that ordinarily the balance will now favour the Article 8 right to a private and family life over the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. There will, of course, be exceptional cases in which the balance will fall in favour of publication, but this latest ruling prevents financial remedy proceedings becoming a blackmailer's charter. It sits comfortably with Mr Justice Coleridge's latest decision in the long running Charman case, in which he refused permission for evidence in the financial remedy proceedings to be released to HMRC. It also sits comfortably with the Imerman decision in which the Court trumpeted its role as the ultimate arbiter as to what material should be disclosed for the purposes of resolving matrimonial disputes.

Judges can still publish their decisions, and Court of Appeal hearings are heard in public, so privacy cannot always be guaranteed if parties go to Court. But, this decision does mean that most divorcing couples can relax and feel safe in the expectation that financial remedy proceedings will be conducted without fear of media intrusion. For those who cannot agree and wish to preserve confidentiality without risk of media encroachment there is the alternative of arbitration under the IFLA scheme, although this does not come as the free service to the public that the Court offers. And for those who do engage in formal Court proceedings, this latest decision is a shot of good common sense.

James Copson is a Partner at Withers LLP with expertise in the resolution of complex financial disputes, especially those of an international nature.

The views expressed by contributing authors are not necessarily those of Family Law or Jordan Publishing and should not be considered as legal advice.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from