XW v XH (No.2) (Reporting Restrictions Order)

XW v XH (No.2) (Reporting Restrictions Order)

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 consequent harm to the child justifies a reporting restrictions order, but the public interest in the legal issues requires publication of an anonymised and redacted judgment.

Parties
Applicant (wife): XW; Respondent (husband): XH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Reporting Restrictions Order in Matrimonial Financial Remedy Proceedings / Post Judgment, Determination of Reporting Restrictions Following Financial Remedies Judgment
Outcome
Reporting restrictions order granted; judgment to be published only in anonymised and redacted form.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Privacy in Family Proceedings, Open Justice, Anonymisation of Judgments, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Rights
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Reporting Restrictions Privacy in Family Proceedings Open Justice Anonymisation of Judgments Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XW

Applicant (wife)

XH

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Application for Reporting Restrictions Order in Matrimonial Financial Remedy Proceedings / Post Judgment, Determination of Reporting Restrictions Following Financial Remedies Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a reporting restrictions order precluding publication of information relating to the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judgment should be published at all, or only in anonymised and redacted form
  3. 3 How to balance Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights in the context of family financial remedy proceedings

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 consequent harm to the child justifies a reporting restrictions order, but the public interest in the legal issues requires publication of an anonymised and redacted judgment.

Court Disposition

Reporting restrictions order granted; judgment to be published only in anonymised and redacted form.

Orders

  • Reporting restrictions order in standard family court form precluding publication of information relating to the proceedings except for an anonymised and redacted version of the judgment.
  • Judgment to be redacted to remove names, identifying details, and confidential information, including details of the husband's company and the child's circumstances.