Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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