Clayton v Clayton: CA 27 Jun 2006

The family had been through protracted family law proceedings and had been subject to orders restricting identification. The father now wanted to discuss his experiences and to campaign. He could not do so without his child being identified.
Held: The protection given by the order against identification of the child did not continue beyond the end of the proceedings unless the effect was required under the 1960 Act. The interests of the children remained paramount, but had to be balanced against the need for open justice. That did not mean that the identity of a child need always be protected.
Potter P, Lady Justice Arden DBE Lord Justice Wall
[2006] EWCA Civ 878, Times 04-Jul-2006, [2006] 3 WLR 599, [2006] Fam 83
Bailii
Children Act 1989 97, Administration of Justice Act 1970 12, European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedOneryildiz v Turkey ECHR 30-Nov-2004
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had lived with his family in a slum bordering on a municipal household refuse tip. A methane explosion at the tip resulted in a landslide which engulfed the applicant’s house killing his close relatives.
Held: The . .
CitedPelling v Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA 5-Jul-2004
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . .
CitedP-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) CA 20-Jun-1996
The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: ‘Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public . .
CitedScott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .
CitedAllan v Clibbery (1) CA 30-Jan-2002
Save in cases involving children and ancillary and other situations requiring it, cases in the family division were not inherently private. The appellant failed to obtain an order that details of an action under the section should not be disclosed . .

Cited by:
CitedNorfolk County Council v Webster and others FD 1-Nov-2006
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified.
Held: A judge . .
CitedBritish Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal and others FD 30-Mar-2007
Parents of a child had resisted care proceedings, and now wished the BBC to be able to make a TV programme about their case. They applied to the court for the judgment to be released. Applications were also made to have a police officer’s and . .
CitedDoctor A and Others v Ward and Another FD 8-Jan-2010
Parents wished to publicise the way care proceedings had been handled, naming the doctors, social workers and experts some of whom had been criticised. Their names had been shown as initials so far, and interim contra mundum orders had been made . .
CitedTSE and ELP v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 23-May-2011
The claimants had obtained an injunction preventing publication of details of their private lives and against being publicly named. The newspaper had not attempted to raise any public interest defence. Various publications had taken place to breach . .
CitedDoncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Haigh FD 22-Aug-2011
The Council sought to have certain aspects of a care application put into the public domain which would normally have remained private. Application was also made (by the father and the child) for an order restricting the right of the mother to make . .
CitedH v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.242896