X v X (anonymisation)

In financial remedy proceedings, anonymisation is determined by an intense, fact-specific balancing exercise between Article 8 privacy rights and Article 10 freedom of expression. Neither right has automatic precedence. The court must compare the importance of the competing rights, consider the justification for restricting each right, and apply proportionality. Children’s independent privacy and family-life rights require particular weight where publication may harm them, but they are not an automatic trump card. Anonymity may be maintained where publication would expose private information or create a real risk of intrusive and distressing attention. The court may permit publication of the reasoning and financial computations in anonymised form while withholding identifying details.

The court had previously determined a substantial financial remedy application between a husband and wife. The judgment contained private financial and family information and was edited and redacted for publication as X v X. The media sought permission to report the parties’ names, relying on the public interest in knowing the outcome of proceedings already reported as having begun and ended.

The husband opposed de-anonymisation. He relied on the parties’ general entitlement to privacy in financial remedy proceedings, the risk of further media intrusion, and the effect on the parties’ teenage children. The wife took no part and was neutral. The central issue was whether the judgment should be published anonymously or with the parties identified.

1. Outcome. The judgment could be reported anonymously as X v X. The parties, their partner and the children were not to be named or directly or indirectly identified in connection with the financial remedy case.
2. Article 8 and Article 10 were both engaged. Neither Convention right had precedence. The court had to focus intensely on the comparative importance of the rights in the individual case, consider the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right, and apply proportionality, following the approach restated in PJS v News Group Newspapers Limited [2016] 2 WLR 1253 and Re S (A child: identification: restrictions on publication) [2004] UK HL47.
3. The children’s interests were not an automatic trump card. They nevertheless had independent Article 8 rights and rights to respect for their family life. Their likely exposure to embarrassment, distress and intrusive attention was a material consideration. Protection against intrusive media attention was distinct from confidentiality.
4. The court could preserve meaningful transparency by publishing the processes and computations supporting the financial remedy order while withholding identifying information. Public curiosity about the outcome did not determine the issue.
5. On the facts, the continuing privacy of the redacted information and the real risk of further intrusive and distressing media attention, particularly affecting the children, outweighed the case for naming the parties. The balance therefore favoured continued anonymity. The husband did not seek a formal Reporting Restriction Order and relied on the agreed reporting rubric.