Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
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
Authors

Judicial Family Policy

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : judicial-family-policy
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 7, 2006, 11:19 AM
Article ID : 86677

At the same conference, and in the same week as Mr Justice Munby gave his judgment in Re Webster (see 'Cases' below) Lord Justice Wall repeated his views on open family courts as expressed in the Hershman-Levy lecture in June 2006 and the September issue of Family Law at [2006] Fam Law 747. His position (in favour of giving the media and in practice the Press access to family proceedings, provided that there were clear ground rules about what they could and could not report) was in substantial agreement with the response to the Government consultation paper by the substantial majority of the High Court Judges of the Family Division, put forward by the President on their behalf. His Lordship did not however favour, indeed was opposed to, the admission of the public into family courts, even given the qualification that there would be a judicial discretion to exclude the public in certain circumstances. Lord Justice Wall then gave his opinion on some particular issues raised by the consultation paper. See December [2006] Fam Law for the full news item.

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