X v X (anonymisation)

X v X (anonymisation)

The balance between the public interest in open justice and the Article 8 rights of the parties and their children comes down firmly in favour of maintaining anonymity. The risk of further intrusive and distressing media interest, particularly for the children, outweighs the media's argument for naming the parties. The judgment may be reported, but only in anonymised form.

Parties
Applicant Wife: X; Respondent Husband: X
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Family/financial Remedy / Post Judgment Application Regarding Anonymisation/publication
Outcome
Application for non-anonymisation refused; judgment to remain anonymised.
Legal Topics
Anonymity in Family Proceedings, Reporting Restrictions, Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Balancing Competing Rights, Children's Rights in Media Reporting
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Anonymity in Family Proceedings Reporting Restrictions Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Balancing Competing Rights +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant Wife

X

Respondent Husband

Procedural Posture

Family/financial Remedy / Post Judgment Application Regarding Anonymisation/publication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the financial remedy judgment should be anonymised or parties named in media reporting
  2. 2 How to balance Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights in the context of family proceedings
  3. 3 Impact of media reporting on children involved in family litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The balance between the public interest in open justice and the Article 8 rights of the parties and their children comes down firmly in favour of maintaining anonymity. The risk of further intrusive and distressing media interest, particularly for the children, outweighs the media's argument for naming the parties. The judgment may be reported, but only in anonymised form.

Court Disposition

Application for non-anonymisation refused; judgment to remain anonymised.

Orders

  • The judgment may be reported anonymously, without naming or identifying the parties or connecting them to the financial remedy case.
  • No Reporting Restriction Order is made, but the media are expected to comply with the anonymity rubric.