Though Mrs Norman will not thank anyone for saying this, her two unsuccessful recent applications in the Court of Appeal – Norman v Norman  EWCA Civ 49 (Fam) (‘Norman 1’), Norman v Norman  EWCA Civ 120 (Fam) (‘Norman 2’) – have clarified a modest number of areas of family procedural and evidential law.
Mrs Norman had been able to continue litigation over her finances and a 2005 consent order for some eighteen years; or, as King LJ said in Norman 2 (at para ), she had litigated for more than three times the length of her marriage. The detail of the tortuous route by which she succeeded in having two cases heard in successive months in the Court of Appeal does not matter. It is the significance of the principles examined which apply here, namely:
- Open court principles in family proceedings, especially in the Court of Appeal;
- Res judicata and the rule in Henderson v Henderson; and
- Finality of litigation and set aside applications (and further review of Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (‘MFPA 1984’) s 31F(6) and Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 4.1(6)).
Open court principles
The open court principle and family proceedings, particularly in relation to parties’ anonymity, has had a number of outings in the past couple of months. The most authoritative of these is Norman 1; but there are also X v X  EWHC 3512 (Fam), Bodey J (should he permit a husband’s request for anonymity of the parties in a case already widely publicised); and A v (1) SSWP and (2) G  UKUT 9, Charles J in the Upper Tribunal (child support: should the general practice of the UT of anonymising report references be continued? Yes, subject to an application by either of the parents).
Mrs Norman wanted anonymity in the Court of Appeal. The common law rules for civil proceedings generally are summarised in Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 39.2. Hearings are to be in public, subject to those which, on application by a party to the proceedings, ‘may be in private’ (r 39.2(3): eg ‘to protect the interests of any child or patient’). The naming of parties, said Gloster LJ, is part of the open justice principle; and anonymity does not follow because parties are anonymous in the court below. If anonymity is claimed it must be formally applied for (see para ).
Gloster LJ was speaking only for proceedings in the Court of Appeal. Privacy principles in family proceedings generally (under FPR 2010, r 27.10) remain (as can be seen in redacted and anonymised form in X v X (Application for a Financial Remedies Order)  EWHC 1995 (Fam)). In family proceedings at whatever level – as Bodey J stressed – children remain a critical factor, and he drew attention to what Lady Hale had said in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd  UKSC 26,  2 FLR 251. Though the welfare of children affected ‘cannot always rule the day’:
' …. they deserve closer attention than they have so far received in [PJS]… children’s interests [are] likely to be affected by a breach of the privacy interests of their parents, but the children have independent privacy interests of their own. They also have a right to respect for their family life with their parents.'
Res judicata and rescinding family orders
In Norman 2 two main points were argued for Mrs Norman: (1) that the court should use its powers to rescind an order; and (2) that the rule in Henderson v Henderson (below) did not apply in this case to Mrs Norman and that therefore her application should not be struck out as an abuse of process. King LJ (with whom Gloster and Lewison LJJ agreed) rejected both aspects of the appeal, and in both cases basing her findings on the need for finality in litigation. She cited the Court of Appeal in Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd  EWCA Civ 1537,  1 WLR 795:
'… The circumstances in which the [discretion under CPR, r 3.1(7) to vary or revoke and order] can be exercised were considered by this court in Tibbles v SIG Plc (trading as Asphaltic Roofing Supplies)  EWCA Civ 518. The court held that considerations of finality, the undesirability of allowing litigants to have two bites at the cherry and the need to avoid undermining the concept of appeal all required a principled curtailment of an otherwise apparently open discretion.'
Article continues below...