Wyatt v Vince

Financial remedy proceedings are generally private, but that starting point may be displaced where the parties’ lives and finances have already entered the public domain, no materially sensitive evidence was disclosed under compulsion, and publication serves a legitimate public interest. Open justice and freedom of expression must be balanced against privacy, including the risk that repetition of private information remains an invasion of privacy. The court should prevent publication of information that may mislead, such as an uncertain estimate of a party’s net recovery. Where a party issues a summons to resolve a position later abandoned by the other party, justice may require an award of the reasonable costs incurred in issuing it.

The applicant and respondent had divorced approximately 19 years before the applicant issued financial remedy proceedings. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in [2015] UKSC 14, the matter proceeded to an unsuccessful FDR and was later compromised. The court was asked to approve the settlement and determine whether its terms could be published. A further issue concerned the costs of a summons issued after the respondent sought to introduce confidentiality undertakings into the consent order, but later withdrew that position.

1. Settlement. The agreed lump sum of £300,000 was reasonable and represented a realistic and balanced appraisal of the unusual circumstances, having regard to Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25(1) and (2). The consent order was approved.
2. Publicity. Financial remedy proceedings are generally private under rule 27.10 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. That is a strong starting point, supported in part by the fact that evidence may have been produced under compulsion. It must be balanced against the constitutional principle of open justice and freedom of expression under article 10 of the ECHR, with particular regard to that right under section 12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
3. The starting point was displaced. The parties’ lives and financial circumstances had already been extensively publicised; the respondent had disclosed no materially sensitive financial evidence under compulsion; and there was a legitimate public interest in revealing both the outcome and the fact that a heavily contested case had been settled without trial. The final order and settlement terms could therefore be published. Repetition of previously published private material may nevertheless remain unlawful, so publication was not unrestricted.
4. The estimated outstanding costs owed by the applicant to her solicitors could not be published. The figure was uncertain and publication might give a misleading impression of the settlement’s actual financial effect. It would also be unfair to publish that estimate without comparable information about the respondent’s costs.
5. Costs. The respondent had insisted that confidentiality undertakings were essential, causing the applicant to issue the Dean summons, but later abandoned that position. Applying rules 1, 28.1 and 28.3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the applicant was entitled to proportionate costs of issuing the summons, assessed at £1,000. No inter partes costs order was made on the publicity issue.

The judgment records the earlier proceedings and Supreme Court direction in [2015] UKSC 14, but this was a first-instance decision on approval of the compromise, publicity and costs.