XW v XH (No.2) (Reporting Restrictions Order) [2018] EWFC 44 (19 June 2018)

XW v XH (No.2) (Reporting Restrictions Order) [2018] EWFC 44 (19 June 2018)

The Article 8 rights to privacy and family life of the parties and their child outweigh the Article 10 rights to freedom of expression in this case. The risk of identification and harm to the vulnerable child justifies a reporting restrictions order prohibiting publication of information relating to the proceedings, except for an anonymised and redacted version of the judgment. The case is not 'incapable of camouflage' and sufficient anonymisation and redaction can protect confidentiality without withholding publication entirely.

Citation
[2018] EWFC 44
Parties
Applicant (wife): XW; Respondent (husband): XH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Family Court Financial Remedies (divorce) / Post Judgment Application for Reporting Restrictions Order
Outcome
Reporting restrictions order granted; anonymised and redacted judgment to be published; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity in Family Proceedings, Open Justice, Privacy Rights, Freedom of Expression, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Reporting Restrictions Anonymity in Family Proceedings Open Justice Privacy Rights Freedom of Expression +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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XW

Applicant (wife)

XH

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Family Court Financial Remedies (divorce) / Post Judgment Application for Reporting Restrictions Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a reporting restrictions order in financial remedy proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judgment should be published, and if so, in what form (anonymised/redacted or withheld)
  3. 3 How to balance Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Article 8 rights to privacy and family life of the parties and their child outweigh the Article 10 rights to freedom of expression in this case. The risk of identification and harm to the vulnerable child justifies a reporting restrictions order prohibiting publication of information relating to the proceedings, except for an anonymised and redacted version of the judgment. The case is not 'incapable of camouflage' and sufficient anonymisation and redaction can protect confidentiality without withholding publication entirely.

Court Disposition

Reporting restrictions order granted; anonymised and redacted judgment to be published; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Reporting restrictions order in standard family court form prohibiting publication of information likely to identify the parties, their child, or family members, except for an anonymised and redacted version of the judgment dated 21 December 2017.
  • Judgment to be anonymised and redacted to remove names, identifying details, and confidential information, including details of the husband's company and the child's medical condition.