Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315 (19 November 2010)

Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315 (19 November 2010)

Where a party to ancillary relief proceedings has engaged in deliberate perjury and litigation misconduct, there is no entitlement to confidentiality in respect of false information or documents. The principle of open justice requires publication of the judgment, subject to redaction of genuinely sensitive material,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1315
Parties
Appellant: Sally Ann Lykiardopulo; 1st Respondent: Panaghis Nicholas Fotis Lykiardopulo; Interested Party: Michael Lykiardopulo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Division, Ancillary Relief) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Judicial Discretion, Open Justice, Anonymisation of Judgments, Enforcement of Judgments, Privacy in Family Proceedings, Misconduct and Perjury, Redaction Vs Anonymisation
Family Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Ancillary Relief Judicial Discretion Open Justice Anonymisation of Judgments Enforcement of Judgments +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sally Ann Lykiardopulo

Appellant

Panaghis Nicholas Fotis Lykiardopulo

1st Respondent

Michael Lykiardopulo

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Division, Ancillary Relief) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judgment in ancillary relief proceedings involving perjury should be published with or without anonymisation
  2. 2 Balancing open justice against privacy and commercial interests
  3. 3 Appropriate judicial response to litigation misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

Where a party to ancillary relief proceedings has engaged in deliberate perjury and litigation misconduct, there is no entitlement to confidentiality in respect of false information or documents. The principle of open justice requires publication of the judgment, subject to redaction of genuinely sensitive material, but not anonymisation. The judge below erred in giving unwarranted weight to speculative commercial harm and insufficient evidential basis for privacy. The appeal is allowed and the anonymisation provisions are struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Provisions for anonymisation of the judgment are struck out
  • Judgment to be published with appropriate redactions but without anonymisation