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
D v E (Welfare Decision following Findings of Domestic Abuse) [2026] EWFC 77 (B) (24 March 2026)
Following findings of domestic abuse, the court stopped all direct contact between a child and her father, continued a medical-information PSO, made a s91(14) order, and allowed anonymised publication.
The judgment should be published as there is no significant confidential information and the open justice principle outweighs privacy expectations, especially given the lack of a valid arbitration agreement. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no real prospect of success on any ground. Costs are awarded to Mr Jalan on the standard basis, not indemnity, with an interim payment of £173,693.17 to be made within 14 days.
Source excerpt
Clyde & Co Llp v Jalan [2026] EWHC 534 (Comm) (09 March 2026)
The Commercial Court ordered publication of its earlier judgment, refused permission to appeal, and awarded costs on the standard basis with an interim payment.
The High Court partly granted a journalist access to family court reports, orders and judgments, but tightly limited publication to protect children’s privacy.
Publication of Emily Waters' name is necessary and proportionate to protect future children, ensure transparency, and address safeguarding gaps in an unregulated profession. Anonymisation is not justified as publication does not risk identifying the children, and existing safeguards relying on Ms Waters' assurances are insufficient given her dishonesty. The emotional impact on Ms Waters is regrettable but does not outweigh the public interest and safeguarding imperative.
Source excerpt
H, In the Matter Of [2025] EWFC 485 (B) (29 October 2025)
The Family Court held that Brent wrongfully removed a child from his maternal aunt’s care without proper notice or consultation, then made a special guardianship order.
D v E (Findings of Domestic Abuse) [2025] EWFC 506 (B) (25 September 2025)
Direct contact between C and her father is to cease because it is not emotionally safe for C and is causing ongoing harm due to the father's coercive and controlling behaviour, lack of genuine insight or change, and the need for C and her mother to repair their relationship. A section 91(14) order is justified to prevent further applications without leave, given the history of abuse and litigation. The prohibited steps order regarding medical information is to continue. Anonymised publication of judgments is permitted.
Source excerpt
E (A Child), Re (Disclosure to Regulator & Naming of a Witness in a Judgment) [2025] EWFC 423 (16 July 2025)
The Family Court ordered publication of a fact-finding judgment in anonymised form, allowed disclosure to a therapist’s regulator and employers, and held that the therapist should be named.
The compelling public interest in publication of the family court judgments, to enable public understanding and correct misinformation, outweighs privacy and confidentiality concerns, given the extensive publicity already in the public domain. Judgments will be published with redactions to protect the children's identities, but not the names of local authorities or professionals except where necessary to prevent jigsaw identification. Adoption judgments will not be published due to heightened risk of identification and harm to the children. Publication will occur after discharge of the s4(2)…
Source excerpt
MZA v FHB (No 4) (private law - supplementary welfare judgment) [2025] EWFC 277 (B) (02 July 2025)
Supplementary welfare judgment in private children proceedings. The court ordered monthly supervised contact, refused a further risk assessment and guardian, and made a section 91(14) order.
Explore more
