Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo

Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo

Where a party has presented a perjured case in ancillary relief proceedings, there is no entitlement to confidentiality or anonymisation of the judgment. The judge erred in placing unwarranted weight on alleged commercial harm and health concerns without evidential foundation. The proper exercise of discretion is to publish the judgment with redaction of genuinely sensitive information, not anonymisation or falsification.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Privacy in Family Proceedings, Publication of Judgments, Enforcement of Orders, Misconduct in Litigation
Family Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Ancillary Relief Privacy in Family Proceedings Publication of Judgments Enforcement of Orders Misconduct in Litigation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sally Ann Lykiardopulo

Appellant

Panaghis Nicholas Fotis Lykiardopulo

1st Respondent

Michael Lykiardopulo

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should a Family Division judge publish an ancillary relief judgment where one party presented a perjured case?
  2. 2 Is anonymisation or redaction appropriate in such circumstances?
  3. 3 Does publication without anonymisation harm commercial interests or privacy rights?

Ratio Decidendi

Where a party has presented a perjured case in ancillary relief proceedings, there is no entitlement to confidentiality or anonymisation of the judgment. The judge erred in placing unwarranted weight on alleged commercial harm and health concerns without evidential foundation. The proper exercise of discretion is to publish the judgment with redaction of genuinely sensitive information, not anonymisation or falsification.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike out provisions for anonymisation of the judgment
  • Publish the judgment with redaction of genuinely sensitive information