Harrington v Harrington

Harrington v Harrington

Given the applicant's former public office, the limited additional interference with his Article 8 rights, and the public interest in transparency and accountability, publication of the judgment is justified. Regarding Mr Brook, his professional status as a solicitor and the public interest in transparency outweigh his Article 8 privacy rights, making publication of his identity necessary and proportionate.

Parties
Applicant: Richard Harrington; Respondent: Jessie Harrington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Publication of Judgment and Supplemental Judgment on Anonymization of Third Party
Outcome
Application for publication of judgment granted; application for anonymization of Mr Brook refused.
Legal Topics
Publication of Judgments, Anonymity, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Financial Remedy, Privacy in Family Proceedings
Family Law Human Rights Publication of Judgments Anonymity Open Justice Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Article 6 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Harrington

Applicant

Jessie Harrington

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Publication of Judgment and Supplemental Judgment on Anonymization of Third Party

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment in financial remedy proceedings should be published with or without anonymization of the parties
  2. 2 Whether a third party (Mr Brook) should be identified or anonymized in the published judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Given the applicant's former public office, the limited additional interference with his Article 8 rights, and the public interest in transparency and accountability, publication of the judgment is justified. Regarding Mr Brook, his professional status as a solicitor and the public interest in transparency outweigh his Article 8 privacy rights, making publication of his identity necessary and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Application for publication of judgment granted; application for anonymization of Mr Brook refused.

Orders

  • Judgment to be published with identification of the parties and Mr Brook, subject to anonymization of children and other third parties.
  • All published versions must strictly preserve the anonymity of children and family members.