X v X [2016] EWHC 3512 (Fam)

16th December 2016

Judgment by Bodey J considering whether a previous judgment should remain anonymised

Facts:

  • The substantive financial remedy proceedings had previously been decided by Bodey J. Prior to that hearing, there had been a level of national media coverage of the parties’ pending financial remedies hearing, given the level of their assets and the effect it may have on a shareholding held by H.
  • At the final hearing, it was agreed between the representatives of the media who were present and the parties that the press could report that the financial remedy case had started and name the parties. However, there was to be no daily reporting of the evidence.
  • The judgment was subsequently edited and redacted by the parties before being made available to the public under the name “X v X”.
  • The media wanted to report the case giving the names of the parties due to the husband’s job as a businessman, as details of the company and his role in it had been given. There was press speculation regarding the possibility of his having to sell parts of his shareholding. The media therefore made a request to report on the judgment, giving the names of the parties.

Held:

  • The strong importance of the public knowing through the media what is done in its name under Article 10 and the rights set out in Article 8 must be balanced.
  • Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 have preference over the other. Where they are in conflict, the comparative importance of the rights being claimed in the individual case should be focussed on. The justifications for interfering with each right must be taken into account. The proportionality test must be applied.
  • There is a choice between anonymisation with the ability to give more information to enable the public better to understand the court’s process, and non-anonymisation, with the provision of a much reduced amount of what would otherwise be helpful information for the public to understand the court’s workings.
  • In this case, the present anonymity was maintained. This still protected the public’s right to know the processes and computations that lead to the financial remedy order and how the arguments were dealt with. The parties had previously had a relatively low public profile, and the prospect of further media intrusion was having a significant effect on H and the children of the family. The fact that some individuals would be able ot ‘join the dots’ as to who the parties were did not imply that they could publish their conclusions.
  • H chose not to seek a Reporting Restriction Order, relying on the good sense and responsibility of the media to comply with this judgment.

 

Stay Up To Date

Follow us on Linkedin to stay up to date with the latest news from 1 Hare Court.