Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal set aside an order requiring disclosure of Court of Protection position statements to a non-party observer, holding the order was unjustified and disproportionate.
Given the extensive information already in the public domain, the strong public interest in scrutiny of private fostering arrangements and Family Court processes, and the ability to protect the children's identities through redaction and reporting restrictions, the balance of Article 8 and Article 10 rights favours allowing the BBC's application for disclosure and reporting, subject to detailed anonymisation and protection of the children's current circumstances.
Source excerpt
Times Media Ltd v Rayner & Ors [2025] EWHC 2878 (Fam) (10 November 2025)
The High Court ordered Times Media Limited to pay a trust’s costs after a disclosure application in family proceedings, finding the hearing could likely have been avoided.
TML should pay the Trust's costs because the disclosure outcome could have been achieved by consent without a hearing, TML failed to engage in pre-hearing compromise despite opportunity, and the Trust's costs would otherwise diminish funds intended for a vulnerable child. The public interest in media reporting is outweighed in this context by the need to protect the trust fund.
Source excerpt
SIAC partly granted media requests for court-file disclosure, preserving redactions for Mr Yang’s personal information, two commercial items, and two words in Mr Hampshire’s statement.
The High Court granted media disclosure of historic Family Court papers about Sara Sharif, but kept anonymity for the children, third parties and judges.
Disclosure of documents from the family proceedings is permitted only to a solicitor, barrister, or other qualified legal adviser for the limited purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to applications under the Human Rights Act or Equalities Act, provided all identifying information about the child, mother, and third parties is redacted. All other requests for disclosure to third parties, including regulatory bodies, MPs, researchers, media, and advocacy groups, are refused due to lack of necessity, risk to the child's welfare, and insufficient clarity or justification.
Source excerpt
The application for permission to seek judicial review was refused because the proceedings were commenced far too late, lacked promptness, and had no merit. The Claimant had alternative remedies, failed to act promptly, and no arguable error of law or jurisdiction was identified in the challenged decisions. The reasons given by Sir Duncan Ouseley for refusing permission were adopted in full.
Source excerpt
Y (Failure to Clarify Immigration Status), Re [2024] EWFC 159 (01 July 2024)
The Family Court allowed disclosure of care documents to the Home Office but refused recitals seeking British citizenship for a child under a special guardianship order.
Given the strong public interest in transparency about the use of deprivation of liberty and secure accommodation orders, the express wish and consent of Ms Codsi (now an adult) to tell her story, the absence of opposition from other parties, and the proportionality of the interference with privacy rights, permission is granted for the applicants to access and report on the relevant transcripts and documents, subject to undertakings not to publish medical or sensitive third-party information.
Source excerpt
Explore more
