A Local Authority v X & Ors (No. 5: Transparency Order) [2025] EWFC 140 (20 May 2025)

A Local Authority v X & Ors (No. 5: Transparency Order) [2025] EWFC 140 (20 May 2025)

The further amendments sought by the parents to the Transparency Order are neither necessary, proportionate nor justified, as existing prohibitions sufficiently protect against jigsaw identification and the risks relied upon are too remote. The balance of Article 8 and Article 10 rights does not warrant further...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 140
Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; First Respondent: X; Second Respondent: Y; Third Respondent: B; Fourth Respondent: C (by their Children's Guardian, Faye Robertson); Intervenor: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Application to Amend Transparency Order Post Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Transparency Order, Anonymisation, Reporting Restrictions, Children's Welfare, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Family Law Care Proceedings Transparency Order Anonymisation Reporting Restrictions Children's Welfare Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

X

First Respondent

Y

Second Respondent

B

Third Respondent

C (by their Children's Guardian, Faye Robertson)

Fourth Respondent

A

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Application to Amend Transparency Order Post Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further amendments to the Transparency Order are necessary to prevent jigsaw identification of the children
  2. 2 Whether prohibitions sought by parents are proportionate and justified
  3. 3 Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The further amendments sought by the parents to the Transparency Order are neither necessary, proportionate nor justified, as existing prohibitions sufficiently protect against jigsaw identification and the risks relied upon are too remote. The balance of Article 8 and Article 10 rights does not warrant further restriction.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • No further amendment to the Transparency Order except prohibition on identifying Y's regulatory body
  • Judgments publication delayed by one day