Norman v Norman

Norman v Norman

The applicant's Article 8 rights were, at most, minimally engaged and did not outweigh the strong public interest in open justice and reporting of court proceedings. There was no compelling evidence of harm to privacy, reputation, or the interests of adult children. The case had already been widely reported, and previous anonymity orders were not determinative. Accordingly, the application for an anonymity order was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Tina Norman; Respondent: Robert Norman; Interested Party: Times Newspapers Limited, Associated Newspapers Limited, Telegraph Newspapers Limited, News Group Newspapers Limited, Sky News
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/financial Remedy) / Application for Anonymity Order in the Court of Appeal, Following Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application for anonymity order dismissed
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Reporting Restrictions, Financial Remedy Appeals, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Family Law Civil Procedure Media Law Anonymity Orders Open Justice Reporting Restrictions Financial Remedy Appeals Article 8 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tina Norman

Appellant

Robert Norman

Respondent

Times Newspapers Limited, Associated Newspapers Limited, Telegraph Newspapers Limited, News Group Newspapers Limited, Sky News

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/financial Remedy) / Application for Anonymity Order in the Court of Appeal, Following Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should continue or impose an anonymity order in financial remedy appeal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 ECHR rights of the applicant outweigh the principle of open justice and Article 10 ECHR rights of the media

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's Article 8 rights were, at most, minimally engaged and did not outweigh the strong public interest in open justice and reporting of court proceedings. There was no compelling evidence of harm to privacy, reputation, or the interests of adult children. The case had already been widely reported, and previous anonymity orders were not determinative. Accordingly, the application for an anonymity order was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for anonymity order dismissed

Orders

  • The wife's application for an anonymity order is dismissed.
  • Previous anonymity orders are discharged.