Tooley v Tooley [2025] EWFC 81 (B) (13 March 2025)

Tooley v Tooley [2025] EWFC 81 (B) (13 March 2025)

There is no statutory restriction or implied undertaking of confidentiality applicable to these proceedings. The default is open justice. However, limited reporting restrictions are justified to protect the identities of third parties and certain confidential information. The husband's application to vary the prior order is granted in part, allowing him to communicate with the press in narrowly defined circumstances regarding his employment and the university investigation, but not about the substance of the Family Law Act proceedings. No similar variation is granted for the wife. The balance of Article 8 and Article 10 rights otherwise favours publication, with only limited restrictions...

Citation
[2025] EWFC 81 (B)
Parties
Applicant / Respondent (husband): Professor James Tooley; Respondent / Applicant (wife): Cynthia Tooley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Act 1996 Applications for Non Molestation Orders / Post Hearing Judgment on Reporting Restrictions and Variation of Prior Order
Outcome
Application to vary prior order granted in part; reporting restriction order made in limited respects; otherwise, publication permitted.
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Anonymisation, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Variation of Orders
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Non Molestation Orders Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Anonymisation Article 8 ECHR +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor James Tooley

Applicant / Respondent (husband)

Cynthia Tooley

Respondent / Applicant (wife)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Act 1996 Applications for Non Molestation Orders / Post Hearing Judgment on Reporting Restrictions and Variation of Prior Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vary a prior order restricting parties' communication with the press
  2. 2 Whether to permit publication of information from private Family Law Act proceedings
  3. 3 Whether anonymisation or further reporting restrictions are necessary

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory restriction or implied undertaking of confidentiality applicable to these proceedings. The default is open justice. However, limited reporting restrictions are justified to protect the identities of third parties and certain confidential information. The husband's application to vary the prior order is granted in part, allowing him to communicate with the press in narrowly defined circumstances regarding his employment and the university investigation, but not about the substance of the Family Law Act proceedings. No similar variation is granted for the wife. The balance of Article 8 and Article 10 rights otherwise favours publication, with only limited restrictions...

Court Disposition

Application to vary prior order granted in part; reporting restriction order made in limited respects; otherwise, publication permitted.

Orders

  • Variation of Judge Baumohl's order: husband may communicate with the press only in confidential pre-publication correspondence regarding his employment and the university investigation, not about the substance of the Family Law Act proceedings.
  • Reporting restriction order: publication restricted only as necessary to protect identities of third parties and certain confidential information; otherwise, publication permitted.