England and Wales Case Law

W v The London Borough of Brent & Ors

The removal of H from MA's care was wrongful as the Local Authority failed to follow the guidance in Re DE, did not notify the Guardian, and acted on chronic concerns that did not warrant urgent removal. The Special Guardianship Order in favour of MA was appropriate, and the judgment should be published naming the Local Authority for transparency and public interest.

Source excerpt

• Special guardianship order
• Care order discharge
• Child arrangements order
• Local authority duties
• Kinship placement
• Transparency in family courts

Read case analysis

The BBC v A London Local Authority & Ors (Press Disclosure Application)

Disclosure of the judgments to the BBC is granted because the public interest in transparency and informed debate outweighs the risk of prejudicing the criminal trial, provided confidentiality of the children's identities is maintained through redaction and compliance with reporting restrictions.

Source excerpt

• Disclosure of judgments
• Reporting restrictions
• Anonymity
• Public interest
• Article 8 and article 10 balancing
• Transparency in family courts

Read case analysis

Amber (Unjustified Delay), Re

Delay in proceedings was wholly unjustified and caused significant emotional harm to Amber. Extensions beyond the statutory 26-week limit were not properly justified or recorded. Adjournment for further assessment of 'Uncle Jay' would cause further harm and is not necessary. Threshold for care order is met. Care order with plan for long-term foster care and monthly contact is the only option meeting Amber's welfare best interests. Judgment to be published for transparency.

Source excerpt

• Care orders
• Delay in proceedings
• Case management
• Welfare of the child
• Article 6 and 8 echr
• Threshold criteria

Read case analysis

A Local Authority v X & Ors (No. 3: Application under r. 27.11(3) FPR 2010 to exclude a member of the press)

A Local Authority v X & Ors (No. 3: Application under r. 27.11(3) FPR 2010 to exclude a member of the press) [2025] EWFC 49 (07 March 2025)

The Family Court refused parents’ application to exclude journalist Hannah Summers from future hearings, finding no evidence that social media links created bias or prejudiced justice.

• Exclusion of press from family proceedings
• Transparency in family courts
• Perceived bias and fair trial rights
• Reporting restrictions
• Article 6 echr
• Family-proceedings

Read case analysis

A Local Authority v The Mother & Anor

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

• Disclosure of court documents
• Confidentiality in family proceedings
• Welfare of the child
• Transparency in family courts

Read case analysis

Local Authority in Wales v Grandmother & Ors

Local Authority in Wales v Grandmother & Ors [2024] EWFC 228 (B) (09 July 2024)

The Family Court granted publication of a redacted judgment about withdrawn care proceedings, finding public interest outweighed identification risks if anonymised carefully.

• Publication of judgments
• Anonymisation
• Open justice
• Reporting restrictions
• Care proceedings
• Transparency in family courts

Read case analysis

Tortoise Media Ltd v A Local Authority & Ors (Rev1)

Tortoise Media Ltd v A Local Authority & Ors (Rev1) [2024] EWFC 50 (08 March 2024)

Family Court transparency judgment allowing limited reporting in care proceedings, but delaying publication until criminal investigations or proceedings end.

• Reporting restrictions
• Transparency in family courts
• Article 8 echr (right to private and family life)
• Article 10 echr (freedom of expression)
• Children act 1989
• Administration of justice act 1960

Read case analysis

Tickle v Father & Ors

Tickle v Father & Ors [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam) (05 October 2023)

The High Court allowed a journalist’s appeal and lifted the adjournment of her reporting application in private family proceedings, finding the Article 8/10 balance had been misapplied.

• Reporting restrictions
• Open justice
• Article 8 echr
• Article 10 echr
• Case management
• Transparency in family courts

Read case analysis

Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors

Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 437 (25 March 2021)

The Court of Appeal upheld refusal of wider access to family court documents, holding that the judge properly balanced the journalist’s Article 10 rights against the child’s and mother’s Article 8 privacy rights.

• Disclosure of court documents
• Open justice
• Article 8 echr (right to privacy)
• Article 10 echr (freedom of expression)
• Parental responsibility
• Reporting restrictions

Read case analysis

Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors

A journalist sought access to the court file in concluded care proceedings. The court refused wholesale disclosure but allowed limited, redacted access to some documents.

• Disclosure of court documents
• Transparency in family courts
• Article 8 and article 10 balancing
• Reporting restrictions
• Best interests of the child
• Family-procedure-rules

Read case analysis