X & Anor v LB of Hillingdon & Ors (Transparency: Restrictions on Disclosure of Information by Parties)

X & Anor v LB of Hillingdon & Ors (Transparency: Restrictions on Disclosure of Information by Parties)

The court refused to lift reporting restrictions to allow the Applicants (parents) or other non-reporters to publish information relating to the proceedings, including naming individual social workers or healthcare professionals. The existing Transparency Order, with minor amendments, was maintained and extended to cover all relevant hearings and to allow sharing of documents with accredited reporters not present at hearings. The court found that lifting restrictions would risk harm to the children (who await adoption), risk abuse and defamation of professionals, and was not justified by any public interest. The restrictions on naming individual professionals were time-limited to two...

Parties
Applicant (father): X; Applicant (mother): Y; First Respondent: London Borough of Hillingdon; Second and Third Respondents: F and G (through their Children’s Guardian, HH)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Children (reporting Restrictions) / Application to Lift Reporting Restrictions After Conclusion of Care and Placement Proceedings
Outcome
Application to lift reporting restrictions refused except for minor amendments to the Transparency Order.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Transparency Orders, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Care and Placement Orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Anonymity of Professionals, Contempt of Court
Family Law Child Protection Media Law Human Rights Reporting Restrictions Transparency Orders Freedom of Expression Article 8 ECHR +5 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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant (father)

Y

Applicant (mother)

London Borough of Hillingdon

First Respondent

F and G (through their Children’s Guardian, HH)

Second and Third Respondents

Procedural Posture

Family Children (reporting Restrictions) / Application to Lift Reporting Restrictions After Conclusion of Care and Placement Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to lift or vary reporting restrictions in respect of concluded children proceedings
  2. 2 Whether parties (parents) may publish information relating to the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether individual social workers and healthcare professionals may be named in published information about the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to lift reporting restrictions to allow the Applicants (parents) or other non-reporters to publish information relating to the proceedings, including naming individual social workers or healthcare professionals. The existing Transparency Order, with minor amendments, was maintained and extended to cover all relevant hearings and to allow sharing of documents with accredited reporters not present at hearings. The court found that lifting restrictions would risk harm to the children (who await adoption), risk abuse and defamation of professionals, and was not justified by any public interest. The restrictions on naming individual professionals were time-limited to two...

Court Disposition

Application to lift reporting restrictions refused except for minor amendments to the Transparency Order.

Orders

  • Transparency Order maintained and extended to cover High Court proceedings and the hearing before HHJ Downey on 30 July 2024.
  • Transparency Order amended to allow parties to share documents with accredited journalists or legal bloggers not present at hearings, subject to safeguards.