Giggs v Giggs

In financial remedy proceedings, privacy and freedom of expression must be balanced by an intense focus on the comparative importance of the competing rights in the individual case. Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 has automatic priority. Financial remedy proceedings are ordinarily conducted in private, particularly because the disclosure regime requires parties to provide sensitive financial information under compulsion. Accredited media may generally attend, but publication of compelled financial information may be restricted where the public interest in reporting it is outweighed by the privacy rights of the parties and their children. Existing public knowledge that a couple is divorcing does not justify publication of their private financial circumstances.

The husband applied in financial remedy proceedings for an order excluding the media from future hearings and for a reporting restriction order covering the parties’ financial information. At the hearing, he no longer pursued the exclusion application, although the court indicated that a renewed application might be made if particular information, such as price-sensitive financial information, arose.

The proceedings were at an early stage following the exchange of Forms E. The wife did not oppose or support the applications. The central issue was whether the parties’ and children’s Article 8 rights justified restricting reporting under Article 10, including publication of the children’s names.

1. Media attendance. The application to exclude the media was not pursued. The ordinary expectation under FPR 2010 rule 27.11(2)(f) is that duly accredited representatives of news-gathering organisations may attend financial remedy hearings. The burden lies on the applicant to establish the need for exclusion. A renewed application could be considered if the interests of justice required exclusion during a particular hearing, for example when price-sensitive financial information was being considered.
2. Balancing Convention rights. The parties and their children had qualified rights under Article 8, while the media and public had Article 10 rights. Neither right had priority. The court was required to focus intensely on the comparative importance of the rights in the individual case, consider the justification for interfering with each right, and apply proportionality. The children’s independent privacy and family-life rights required particular consideration.
3. Financial remedy proceedings. Such proceedings are private both under FPR 2010 rule 27.10 and because they concern inherently private financial matters. There was a strong starting point in favour of privacy. That protection was reinforced by FPR 2010 rule 9.14, which required disclosure of personal financial information to the other party and the court, and by the implied undertaking restricting collateral use of information disclosed under compulsion.
4. Application to the case. The fact that the parties’ divorce and financial proceedings were already publicly known could not legitimately be restrained. It did not, however, create a sufficient public interest in publishing their financial circumstances or future financial plans. At this stage, the Article 8 rights of the parties and children significantly outweighed any Article 10 interest in publication. A reporting restriction order was therefore continued in respect of disclosed financial information and the children’s names, until further order, subject to conscientious review and final review when judgment or an approved consent order concluded the proceedings.

The applications were issued on 19 January 2017. On 20 January 2017 the court declined to exclude the media, made an interim reporting restriction order and adjourned the remaining issues to allow media organisations an opportunity to attend or make representations. The present court continued the reporting restriction order and left open the possibility of a renewed application for exclusion in appropriate circumstances.