His Royal Highness Louis Xavier Marie Guillaume v Her Royal Highness Tessy Princess of Luxembourg & Anor

In financial remedy proceedings, publication of settlement offers and information concerning the former matrimonial home may be restrained where publication would interfere with the confidential negotiation process and the proper administration of justice. The court must balance the competing rights under Arts 6, 8 and 10 of the ECHR by applying an intense focus to the specific rights engaged and the ultimate proportionality test. Financial information and information concerning the parties’ home may engage Art 8 even where the information is not protected by the implied undertaking or is available from a public register. The fact that a party has been traduced in the press does not, by itself, remove duties of confidentiality. A party may still correct the record in general terms. The protection of confidential negotiations may nevertheless outweigh the right to publish specific financial information.

The husband sought a reporting restriction order in ongoing financial remedy proceedings involving his former wife and The Telegraph Media Group Ltd. The wife wished to publish the bare terms of her open settlement offer and information concerning the former matrimonial home in order to rebut hostile and allegedly inaccurate media coverage. The husband sought restrictions covering financial information, settlement offers, the home, third-party information and information concerning the children.

The application followed an interim order made without full notice to the media. The central issue was whether publication of the disputed information should be permitted, having regard to the implied undertaking, the public domain, open justice, and the competing rights under Arts 8 and 10 of the ECHR.

1. Disposition. A reporting restriction order was made. It prohibited publication of the terms of the wife’s open offer and information concerning the former matrimonial home, together with the other categories specified in the order. It was to last until conclusion of the financial remedy proceedings and was subject to review.
2. Applicable approach. The jurisdiction arose from the Convention rights, not merely from the inherent jurisdiction. The court was required to balance the competing rights under Arts 6, 8 and 10 by applying an intense focus to the specific rights claimed, the justifications for interference and the ultimate proportionality test, following Re S (A Child)(Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593.
3. Privacy and confidentiality. The parties’ personal financial information, the proposed settlement figures and arrangements, and information concerning their home engaged Art 8. The implied undertaking protected information disclosed compulsorily, or voluntarily in circumstances where disclosure would otherwise have been compelled. It was a weighty factor supporting privacy, but did not itself determine the Art 8/Art 10 balance.
4. Public domain and correction. Land Registry information was publicly inspectable under s 66 of the Land Registration Act 2002, but republication could still have a significant intrusive effect. The fact that the wife had been traduced in the press justified placing correction of the record in the balance, but did not release her from continuing confidentiality obligations or justify publication of family-court material in full.
5. Proportionality. Publicity could place pressure on the parties, distort settlement negotiations and undermine the administration of justice. The wife remained free to state in general terms that she sought a fair settlement and had made an offer, and to rebut other criticisms. Restricting the specific financial information was therefore proportionate. The order did not prevent reporting of the general fact of the proceedings or information already in the public domain, except where covered by the order.

Not stated in the judgment.