The parents had been involved in bitter and very public divorce and ancillary relief proceedings. Application had been made to redact from the public report of the proceedings matters relating their child. The mother appealed against the order made.
Held: The appeal failed.
Thorpe LJ said that ‘although all litigants have a confident expectation of a private hearing, no litigant can have a confident expectation that the resulting judgment will not be released to the public domain.’
Wall desribed the order as a classic case of a judge exercising a discretion. The case of Bellenden, as approved in G v G is the leading case. Following that ‘the function of this court in my judgment is to review the decision made by the judge and to ask itself whether or not any of the following three questions is arguable:
1) Did the judge leave out of account or not give sufficient weight to any particular factor in the case?
2) Has he given no weight or inadequate weight to factors which are relevant? And
3) In the performance of what has become popularly known as the balancing exercise, has he reached a conclusion which was plainly wrong or arguably plainly wrong?’
Judges:
Thorpe LJ, Wall LJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 1543
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Children
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347061