DL v SL

Financial remedy proceedings are ordinarily private business. The media may attend as the public’s eyes and ears, but that role does not generally permit publication of the parties’ identities or intimate financial information. Anonymity will usually follow where privacy is sought, subject to exceptional circumstances such as disgraceful conduct or facts making anonymisation impossible. The court must balance privacy under Article 8 against freedom of expression under Article 10, but the balance is ordinarily resolved in favour of privacy in financial remedy proceedings. The presumption that such proceedings are private is strong and should not be displaced without a compelling reason. A medical report supporting an adjournment remains evidence to be assessed with the whole case, including the party’s previous conduct.

The applicant and respondent were involved in financial remedy proceedings following their separation. The proceedings had become procedurally difficult, with numerous orders, applications for adjournments and challenges by the respondent. The respondent sought an adjournment on medical grounds and the media sought to have anonymity restrictions lifted.

The court considered whether the financial remedy proceedings should proceed, whether the respondent’s medical evidence justified an adjournment, and whether the media should be restrained from identifying the parties or publishing their personal and business financial information.

1. Anonymity and privacy. Financial remedy proceedings are quintessentially private business. The statutory and procedural framework, the compelled disclosure of private financial information, and the relevant human-rights and international-law principles support a strong presumption in favour of privacy and anonymity. The media’s attendance under FPR 27.11 and PD27B does not convert private proceedings into public proceedings.
2. The court must balance Article 8 privacy rights against Article 10 freedom of expression. In private financial proceedings, privacy will generally prevail where anonymity is sought. Exceptions may arise where the facts demonstrate disgraceful conduct or are so striking that anonymisation is impossible. The media may report the conduct of the proceedings and legal issues in an abstract way, but not intimate financial details without permission.
3. The court disagreed with the approach in Luckwell v Limata that FPR 27.10 provides no presumption of privacy, and with the corresponding approach described in Fields v Fields. FPR 27.10 establishes a strong starting point which requires a compelling reason before departure.
4. The court considered that the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 applies to ancillary relief proceedings. Its policy had repeatedly been endorsed by Parliament through later amendments. The court also identified uncertainty concerning access to documents on the court file if such proceedings were heard publicly.
5. Adjournment. The decision whether to adjourn is a case-management discretion governed by the overriding objective. Medical evidence should identify the condition, explain why participation is prevented, provide a reasoned prognosis and demonstrate an independent opinion after proper examination. Even adequate expert evidence must be assessed with the whole material, including the previous conduct of the case. The respondent’s history, the simplicity of the case and his ability to present it meant that proceeding was not unfair.
6. The adjournment application was refused. The parties subsequently settled on the second day of the hearing and a confidential consent order was made. Orders were made restraining publication identifying the parties or referring to their personal or business financial information, except information already in the public domain.