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
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles

Case review: Re A and B (children)

Jan 11, 2019, 08:02 AM
Slug :
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : Yes
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 11, 2019, 08:00 AM
Article ID :

The balance came down clearly and decisively against granting the applicant journalist permission to publish information about care proceedings brought by the respondent local authority in relation to two children.

The Family Division also held that an injunction sought by the local authority preventing the journalist publishing or broadcasting any details of the children or the proceedings was not necessary to prevent what s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 prohibited.


The respondent local authority brought care proceedings in relation to two children. The applicant journalist (SG) applied for permission to report the proceedings. However, his application was refused and he was ordered to return to the authority all court documents and any copies of those documents which he retained. The order further informed him that he should remove from the internet within 24 hours, a particular article he had written referred to in the order. SG did not comply with the order and, in fact, put up more material about the case on the internet.

In response, the local authority sought an injunction that, among other things, prohibited further publication by SG of details relating to the proceedings and the removal of the information on the internet. The judge gave effect to the local authority's application.

SG then applied for various orders, including that permitting publication of a series of articles about the child protection care proceedings process. The authority cross-applied for an injunction to prevent SG from publishing or broadcasting any details of the children or the proceedings to last until the children's respective 18th birthdays.

Want to access the rest of this story? To read the balance of this article click here (subscription required). This news analysis was first published by LexisPSL Family. To request a free one week trial click here.

Categories :
  • Articles
  • News
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from