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
New complaints handling guide offers advice to local authorities
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is today issuing new guidance on effective complaint handling for local authorities.Based on previous documents, the new guide offers practical,...
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...
Family Law Awards winners announced in virtual awards ceremony
The winners of the Family Law Awards 2020 were announced at 4pm during a much-anticipated virtual awards ceremony. Over the past ten years, the Family Law Awards has recognised the leading players in...
Behaviour-based divorces still merit close consideration
Some recent cases illustrate the evidential and procedural issues involved in dealing with proofs on the merits of divorce, which are worth considering even though most cases may conclude on a...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles
Authors

Re Al M (reporting restrictions order) [2020] EWHC 702 (Fam)

Apr 28, 2020, 11:36 AM
Reporting – Witness anonymity – Child welfare
The Family Division allowed the witness’ application for a reporting restrictions order to protect her identity.
Slug :
Meta Title : Re Al M (reporting restrictions order) [2020] EWHC 702 (Fam)
Meta Keywords : Reporting – Witness anonymity – Child welfare
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 27, 2020, 23:00 PM
Article ID :

(Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane P, 24 March 2020)

Reporting – Witness anonymity – Child welfare

The Family Division allowed the witness’ application for a reporting restrictions order to protect her identity.


For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European courts case, subscribe to Family Law Reports.

Subscribers can log in here.

Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of the Family Law Reports. Please quote: 100482.

 


Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 702 (Fam)

Case No: FD19P00246, FD19P00380, FD19F05020, FD19F00064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 24/03/2020

Before :

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re Al M (Reporting Restrictions Order)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Christina Michalos QC (instructed by DAC Beachcroft Solicitors) for the Applicant
Ms Sarah Palin (instructed by Associated Newspapers Ltd, British Broadcasting Corporation, The Financial Times Ltd, Guardian News & Media Ltd, Telegraph Media Group Ltd, Sky PLC, Thomson Reuters, Times Newspapers Limited and the Press Association) for the Respondent Media Group

Hearing date: 21st February 2020

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

.............................

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Publicity and Reporting
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from