Clayton v Clayton

Clayton v Clayton

The statutory prohibition on identifying a child under s.97(2) Children Act 1989 ceases when proceedings conclude. Any continuing restriction on publicity must be justified by a specific welfare need and be proportionate. The blanket injunction was too broad and not justified post-proceedings except to the extent necessary to protect the child from being involved in publicity about her abduction. The father's Article 10 rights to discuss the case and campaign are not to be restricted, but he may not involve the child in media projects about the abduction, as this would be contrary to her welfare and privacy rights.

Parties
Appellant/father: Clayton; Respondent/mother: Clayton; Child/subject of Proceedings: C; Advocate to the Court: CAFCASS Legal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings (private Law, Contact/residence) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; injunction discharged; new prohibited steps order imposed.
Legal Topics
Children Act 1989 S.97, Administration of Justice Act 1960 S.12, Freedom of Expression (echr Article 10), Right to Private Life (echr Article 8), Prohibited Steps Orders, Injunctions in Family Proceedings, Publicity and Anonymity in Family Cases
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Children Act 1989 S.97 Administration of Justice Act 1960 S.12 Freedom of Expression (echr Article 10) Right to Private Life (echr Article 8) Prohibited Steps Orders +2 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clayton

Appellant/father

Clayton

Respondent/mother

C

Child/subject of Proceedings

CAFCASS Legal

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings (private Law, Contact/residence) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the prohibition on publication under s.97(2) Children Act 1989 continue after proceedings conclude?
  2. 2 Is a continuing injunction restraining the father from publicity about the case justified post-proceedings?
  3. 3 How should the balance between Article 8 (child's privacy) and Article 10 (parent's expression) be struck?

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory prohibition on identifying a child under s.97(2) Children Act 1989 ceases when proceedings conclude. Any continuing restriction on publicity must be justified by a specific welfare need and be proportionate. The blanket injunction was too broad and not justified post-proceedings except to the extent necessary to protect the child from being involved in publicity about her abduction. The father's Article 10 rights to discuss the case and campaign are not to be restricted, but he may not involve the child in media projects about the abduction, as this would be contrary to her welfare and privacy rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; injunction discharged; new prohibited steps order imposed.

Orders

  • Discharge of the continuing injunction restraining the father from publicity about the case.
  • Prohibited steps order restraining the father from taking the child to Portugal or involving her in any publication about her abduction.