Gelber v Griffin

Documents disclosed in private family proceedings remain subject to the court’s control. Unauthorised disclosure may constitute contempt of court. The exceptions permitting communication without permission must be construed by reference to their wording and purpose. A recipient is not a legal representative or professional legal adviser merely because it provides assistance with related proceedings before another tribunal. Communication to a lay adviser is permitted only to enable advice or assistance in relation to the family proceedings themselves. Disclosure for use in an appeal before a different tribunal therefore falls outside the exception unless the court has granted permission.

The applicant brought a notice to show cause concerning the respondent’s disclosure of Form E documents to Child Support Solutions Ltd. The documents had been disclosed in the context of an appeal to the Child Support and Social Security Tribunal from a Child Support Agency decision. The central issue was whether the disclosure was authorised by rule 10.20A of the Family Proceedings Rules or otherwise amounted to contempt of court.

1. The disclosure of the Form E documents to Child Support Solutions Ltd was not a communication to the tribunal itself and had been made without permission from the family court.
2. Rule 10.20A applied because the proceedings were held in private and related mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a minor. The duty not to disclose documents or information relating to such proceedings is owed to the court and is enforceable as contempt of court. The court retains power to release a recipient wholly or partly from that duty and to permit use of the documents.
3. Child Support Solutions Ltd was not a legal representative or professional legal adviser within rule 10.20A(5). It was not a barrister, solicitor, solicitor’s employee or other authorised litigator instructed to act for, or advise, a party in the family proceedings.
4. The company could fall within the description of a lay adviser. However, the relevant exception permitted communication only to enable advice or assistance in relation to the family proceedings. The reference to “the proceedings” did not extend to the separate appeal before the Child Support and Social Security Tribunal.
5. Permission should have been obtained before disclosure. The unauthorised disclosure breached rule 10.20A and constituted contempt of court. The court expressed disapproval but made no order in relation to the breach or contempt.