Spencer v Spencer

Spencer v Spencer

The application to exclude the media was refused because the parties failed to demonstrate that the case fell within any of the grounds in rule 10.28(4) justifying exclusion. The fact that the parties are high-profile individuals and the proceedings are sensitive does not, without more, justify exclusion. The legislative intent and the rules require media access as the default, and any order for exclusion must be based on necessity or a demonstrated risk to justice, which was not established here.

Parties
Petitioner: Countess Spencer; Respondent: Earl Spencer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief (family) Proceedings / Final Hearing; Application to Exclude Media
Outcome
Application to exclude media refused; media permitted to attend hearing.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Media Attendance in Family Proceedings, Privacy and Confidentiality, Reporting Restrictions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Ancillary Relief Media Attendance in Family Proceedings Privacy and Confidentiality Reporting Restrictions Article 8 ECHR +2 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Countess Spencer

Petitioner

Earl Spencer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief (family) Proceedings / Final Hearing; Application to Exclude Media

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the media should be excluded from ancillary relief proceedings under rule 10.28 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the parties' Article 8 rights justify exclusion of the media
  3. 3 Whether the transitional nature of the case (commenced before rule change) affects media rights

Ratio Decidendi

The application to exclude the media was refused because the parties failed to demonstrate that the case fell within any of the grounds in rule 10.28(4) justifying exclusion. The fact that the parties are high-profile individuals and the proceedings are sensitive does not, without more, justify exclusion. The legislative intent and the rules require media access as the default, and any order for exclusion must be based on necessity or a demonstrated risk to justice, which was not established here.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude media refused; media permitted to attend hearing.

Orders

  • Media not excluded from the hearing.
  • No general reporting restriction imposed at this stage.