London Borough of Enfield v The Mother & Ors

In family proceedings, withholding relevant information requires a rigorous and proportionate assessment of relevance, harm, possible safeguards, welfare and the affected party’s rights. Any restriction must be strictly necessary and limited in scope and duration. The non-disclosure rule for forced marriage protection proceedings in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 does not apply to care proceedings, where the court manages the issue under the general case-management rule. The same disclosure framework can apply where the feared harm is to another person. In forced-marriage cases, the court should consider the particular human-rights and domestic-abuse context. Non-disclosure remains exceptional and requires a compelling justification.

The London Borough of Enfield obtained a forced marriage protection order without notice to the parents of two children. Evidence and submissions from that hearing were withheld from the parents. The Local Authority later began care proceedings, and the children lived in foster care. The Children’s Guardian applied to withhold the same material from the parents in the care proceedings. The father sought judicial consideration of whether continued withholding was necessary and proportionate. The High Court considered the procedure and legal test for deciding whether material withheld in forced marriage protection proceedings may also be withheld in care proceedings, and then applied that framework in a closed annex.

Application granted temporarily. The Withheld Information was to remain undisclosed to the parents for a short further period, in accordance with an approved plan leading to disclosure.

1. Procedure. Rule 11.7(2) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 provides for withholding submissions or evidence in proceedings to which Part 11 applies, including forced marriage protection proceedings. Part 11 does not apply to care proceedings under Part IV of the Children Act 1989. Part 12 contains no equivalent withholding rule. The applicable power is the general case-management provision in rule 12.12(2)(a) (paras 10–11).
2. Disclosure test. The court applied the six questions set out in Re T (Children: Non-Disclosure) [2024] EWCA Civ 241, drawing on the principles summarised in Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) [1996] AC 593. The court must consider whether the material is relevant; whether disclosure creates a real possibility of significant harm; whether measures could reduce that risk; the welfare advantages and disadvantages of disclosure; whether the child’s interests compellingly outweigh the other party’s rights so that withholding is strictly necessary; and whether the restriction can be limited in scope or duration (para 12).
3. Whose interests may justify withholding. The framework applies where the feared harm is to the subject child or another person. The common law does not generally permit relevant information to be withheld from one party through a closed process, subject to the recognised child-welfare exception and the exception under the Human Rights Act 1998 where necessary to protect another person’s Convention rights. Whether a further exception applies, for example to protect operational policing details, was left undecided (para 13).
4. Forced-marriage context. When assessing harm in a case involving forced marriage, the court should take that context into account, including the serious human-rights and domestic-abuse implications described in In re K [2020] EWCA Civ 190 (paras 14–15).
5. Application. The information was relevant, and immediate disclosure presented a real possibility of significant harm to an identified individual. No alternative measure, including provision of a gist, could reduce that risk at the time. The need to prevent harm compellingly outweighed the parents’ rights to see the information for a short further period. The continuing interference was proportionate, and the care proceedings were left to continue in the Family Court (paras 16–20).

The Children’s Guardian’s application was transferred by Arbuthnot J to the High Court. On 6 May 2026, the judge initially directed that the material remain withheld pending further consideration. No appeal is described.