M (A Child), Re

M (A Child), Re

The trial judge exercised his discretion properly, considered all relevant factors, and reached a conclusion plainly open to him. There was no arguable error of law or principle to justify granting permission to appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Miss Mills; Respondent: Sir Paul McCartney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (refusal of Publication Order)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Publication of Judgments, Judicial Discretion, Privacy in Family Proceedings
Family Law Civil Procedure Publication of Judgments Judicial Discretion Privacy in Family Proceedings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Mills

Appellant

Sir Paul McCartney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (refusal of Publication Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ordering publication of the ancillary relief judgment without anonymisation
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider privacy interests of the child and parties
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was denied an opportunity to propose further redactions

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge exercised his discretion properly, considered all relevant factors, and reached a conclusion plainly open to him. There was no arguable error of law or principle to justify granting permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Stay on publication order lifted