A LA v X & Y and Others (No 3: Application under r27.11(3) FPR 2010 to exclude a member of the press)

A LA v X & Y and Others (No 3: Application under r27.11(3) FPR 2010 to exclude a member of the press)

The application to exclude Ms Summers from future hearings is refused because none of the grounds under rule 27.11(3) FPR 2010 are established. The allegations of bias are unsubstantiated and based on speculation regarding social media activity unrelated to the case. There is no evidence of impropriety or breach of professional obligations by counsel or the journalist. The Article 6 rights of the parties are safeguarded by the court's directions and procedures.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; Respondent: X; Respondent: Y; Respondent: B; Respondent: C; Intervenor: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Interlocutory Application (application to Exclude Journalist From Hearings)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Exclusion of Press, Transparency in Family Proceedings, Bias and Perception of Bias, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Reporting Restrictions
Family Law Media Law Exclusion of Press Transparency in Family Proceedings Bias and Perception of Bias Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) Reporting Restrictions

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

X

Respondent

Y

Respondent

B

Respondent

C

Respondent

A

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Interlocutory Application (application to Exclude Journalist From Hearings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exclude an accredited journalist from attending further hearings under rule 27.11(3) FPR 2010
  2. 2 Whether alleged social media links and perceived bias justify exclusion of the press
  3. 3 Whether Article 6 rights or justice would be impeded by the journalist's attendance

Ratio Decidendi

The application to exclude Ms Summers from future hearings is refused because none of the grounds under rule 27.11(3) FPR 2010 are established. The allegations of bias are unsubstantiated and based on speculation regarding social media activity unrelated to the case. There is no evidence of impropriety or breach of professional obligations by counsel or the journalist. The Article 6 rights of the parties are safeguarded by the court's directions and procedures.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Ms Summers is not excluded from attending future hearings.
  • Updated report from the Children’s Guardian to be filed and served by 4pm 17 March 2025.