A v A

In financial remedy proceedings heard in private, media attendance does not itself place compelled financial information in the public domain. The court must balance open justice and Article 10 freedom of expression against Article 8 privacy rights, having regard to Article 6 and the implied undertaking of confidentiality. Information obtained under compulsion for full and frank disclosure remains confidential unless and until it enters the public domain. Reporting restrictions may therefore be imposed where publicity would add little to public understanding of family justice and would unjustifiably interfere with private information. Limited reporting of the divorce and financial remedy proceedings, their dates, and the fact and date of settlement was permitted.

The parties began a five-day final hearing of an application for financial remedy. The husband’s parents initially participated as interveners but were discharged after settling their claims. Accredited media attended, and a temporary reporting restriction order was made.

The financial dispute settled immediately before judgment was due to be delivered. The court then heard the husband’s application for continuing restrictions on reporting, opposed principally by Times Newspapers Limited. The central issue was whether evidence given in private financial remedy proceedings could be reported consistently with open justice and Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.

1. Reporting restrictions granted. Disclosure was prohibited except for information permitted under section 1 of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 in the divorce suit, the fact and dates of the financial remedy application and hearing, and the fact and date of settlement.
2. Open justice is a common-law principle applying in principle to family courts. It is reinforced by Article 6, but privacy may be protected where required by private life or the interests of justice.
3. Information compelled for full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings is protected by an implied undertaking of confidentiality before, during and after the proceedings, unless it enters the public domain. The protection extends to documents, witness evidence and information concerning non-parties.
4. Media attendance at a private hearing does not itself make confidential information public. Financial remedy proceedings held privately under rule 27.10 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 are compatible with Article 6.
5. The balance favoured privacy concerning private financial arrangements and the husband’s business. Reporting would not enhance public understanding of the family justice system and would interfere with Article 8 rights and the confidentiality undertaking.