C (A Child)

Permission to appeal may be granted where a case raises an important and potentially unsettled question about the purpose and practical scope of a long-term injunction in Children Act proceedings. The issue may include what a restrained litigant can say, to whom, and whether the injunction remains necessary. Permission may be justified by the wider significance of publicity and confidentiality issues, irrespective of the court’s provisional view of the ultimate merits. Reporting restrictions may continue pending the appeal while the injunction remains in force.

The father sought permission to appeal against Hedley J’s refusal in July 2005 to discharge an injunction made in November 2004. The injunction restrained him from discussing or publicising matters concerning his daughter and was expressed to last until her eighteenth birthday. The underlying proceedings had been discharged after the parents reached an agreement on shared parenting. The father was potentially out of time by about one day, and the mother did not appear. The central issue identified for the appeal was the purpose and function of long-term injunctions in Children Act proceedings, including their practical effect on publicity and confidentiality.

Permission to appeal was granted. Time for filing the appellant’s notice was extended.

1. The court considered that the case raised, in an acute form, the purpose and function of long-term injunctions in Children Act proceedings. It also raised the practical question of what a person restrained by such an injunction could say, and to whom, together with the function the injunction was intended to fulfil.
2. The father’s wish to promote shared-parenting agreements and to campaign on social-security issues was not treated as determinative. The injunction might prevent none of those activities and might remain useful protection against further publicity. However, there could be legitimate uncertainty about its scope, and an effective argument might be made for discharging it.
3. The wider importance of publicity and confidentiality justified consideration by a full court, irrespective of whether the father would ultimately succeed. The appeal was directed to be listed before three judges, if possible including two with family experience. Other pending cases raising the injunction issue should, if appropriate, be listed with it, and CAFCASS Legal should be invited to appoint a friend of the court.
4. Pending the appeal, the injunction remained in force and reporting restrictions were continued. The case was to be reported only under initials. A copy of the judgment was directed to be provided at public expense to the parties and CAFCASS Legal.

• High Court of Justice, Family Division, Cardiff District Registry: Hedley J made an injunction in November 2004 restraining publicity concerning the child and later refused, in July 2005, to discharge it.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted against the refusal to discharge the injunction. The appeal was directed to be heard by three judges, if possible including two with family experience. [2005] EWCA Civ 1705