G v S (Family Law Act 1996: Publicity) [2024] EWFC 231 (B) (06 June 2024)

G v S (Family Law Act 1996: Publicity) [2024] EWFC 231 (B) (06 June 2024)

The default position in FLA 1996 non-molestation proceedings involving allegations of domestic abuse is confidentiality, requiring court permission for publication. The respondent's Article 8 rights to privacy outweigh the applicant's Article 10 rights and public interest arguments in this case, so permission to publish is refused.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 231 (B)
Parties
Applicant: Mr G; Respondent: Ms S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Act 1996 Non Molestation Order Application / Post Compromise, Application for Permission to Publish Information
Outcome
Application for permission to publish information about the proceedings refused.
Legal Topics
Non Molestation Orders, Publicity in Family Proceedings, Reporting Restrictions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Implied Undertaking of Confidentiality
Family Law Privacy Law Human Rights Law Non Molestation Orders Publicity in Family Proceedings Reporting Restrictions Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +1 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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr G

Applicant

Ms S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Act 1996 Non Molestation Order Application / Post Compromise, Application for Permission to Publish Information

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party to FLA 1996 proceedings may speak publicly about the proceedings and evidence
  2. 2 Whether s12 Administration of Justice Act 1960 applies to these proceedings
  3. 3 Whether implied undertaking of confidentiality arises in FLA 1996 non-molestation applications

Ratio Decidendi

The default position in FLA 1996 non-molestation proceedings involving allegations of domestic abuse is confidentiality, requiring court permission for publication. The respondent's Article 8 rights to privacy outweigh the applicant's Article 10 rights and public interest arguments in this case, so permission to publish is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to publish information about the proceedings refused.

Orders

  • Applicant not permitted to publish information about the proceedings.
  • If applicant wishes to speak anonymously, a fresh application must be made.