There is nothing inherently different in Family Division proceedings to justify an implied ban on all disclosures of matters proceeding in chambers. Here no children or other sensitive matters were involved. The simple filing of an affidavit containing material in the Family division could not thereby create any confidentiality in that material. The instant material was not covered by any other undertaking implied in the court process, and the restriction on publication was discharged.
Times 02-Jul-2001, Gazette 05-Jul-2001, [2001] 2 FLR 819
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Allan 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 – Kent County Council v The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD 19-Mar-2004
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . .
Cited – P v BW (Children Cases: Hearings in Public) FD 2003
The applicant sought a joint residence order, and for a declaration that the rules preventing such hearings being in public breached the requirement for a public hearing.
Held: Both FPR 1991 rule 4.16(7) and section 97 are compatible with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.79220
