X v X (anonymisation) [2016] EWHC 3512 (Fam) (16 December 2016)

X v X (anonymisation) [2016] EWHC 3512 (Fam) (16 December 2016)

The balance between privacy rights of the parties and their children and the public interest in transparency comes down firmly in favour of maintaining anonymity; the judgment may be reported anonymously as 'X v X', without naming or identifying the parties.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3512 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant Wife: X; Respondent Husband: X; Interested Party (media): Brian Farmer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Application / Post Judgment, Issue of Anonymisation
Outcome
Anonymity maintained; judgment to be reported as 'X v X' without naming parties.
Legal Topics
Anonymisation of Judgments, Privacy Rights, Freedom of Expression, Reporting Restrictions, Children's Rights
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Anonymisation of Judgments Privacy Rights Freedom of Expression Reporting Restrictions Children's Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant Wife

X

Respondent Husband

Brian Farmer

Interested Party (media)

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Application / Post Judgment, Issue of Anonymisation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the financial remedy judgment be anonymised or reported with party names?
  2. 2 Does the public interest in transparency outweigh the privacy rights of the parties and their children?

Ratio Decidendi

The balance between privacy rights of the parties and their children and the public interest in transparency comes down firmly in favour of maintaining anonymity; the judgment may be reported anonymously as 'X v X', without naming or identifying the parties.

Court Disposition

Anonymity maintained; judgment to be reported as 'X v X' without naming parties.

Orders

  • Judgment may be reported anonymously.
  • No Reporting Restriction Order sought; media expected to comply with anonymity rubric.