*/
Should you be worried if a ‘reporter’ attends your hearing, and which family judgments are most likely to be published? Mark Harrop considers current rules and practice in light of greater transparency in family law proceedings
Transparency rules are now in place across almost the whole of the family justice system. It is easy to be in favour of transparency in principle but still want to keep the intimate details of your own clients’ family disputes out of the limelight. This article considers how that can be achieved in this new era of openness.
In January this year, pilot schemes that had been trialled across a number of courts since 2023 were formalised in a new Practice Direction 12R to the Family Procedure Rules. Applying first to public law hearings before judges and extended to private law hearings before judges from 1 May 2025, the new practice direction will also apply to children hearings before magistrates from 29 September 2025.
Meanwhile, the separate scheme for financial remedy cases, while still technically a pilot, was extended to cover all courts on 29 January 2025.
Both schemes (children and financial) operate in a similar way. Under both schemes, a ‘reporter’ (who could be an accredited member of the press or a lawyer attending for journalistic, research or public legal education purposes) can sit in and observe almost any family court hearings (with certain exceptions, such as financial dispute resolution hearings in financial remedy proceedings and non-lawyer reviews in Family Drug and Alcohol Courts).
If a reporter attends the hearing, then the court will make a transparency order prescribing the information that anyone (including the reporter and the parties) can and cannot put in the public domain. In the case of children proceedings, the template order remains in force until the 18th birthday of the youngest child. The financial remedies template order has no standard end date but is to be kept under review by the court at each hearing.
The aim of the schemes is not an invitation for parties and their children to be identified, but to provide a mechanism for the system, and individual decisions made within it, to be held up to a greater level of public scrutiny than was possible simply through the publication of judgments.
The restrictions in the transparency orders are designed to allow examination of the decisions without having to identify any of the individuals involved. They are not intended to subvert the rules or case law protecting the anonymity of children within court proceedings, an outcome that seems to have been confirmed in the recent decision of Harris J in M v F and C [2025] EWHC 801 (Fam).
The fundamental change is that there is now a presumption that reports of proceedings can be published and the court would need to be persuaded why they shouldn’t be. Efforts to stop reporters attending have been slapped down by the courts (see Tickle v Father [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam)).
A second limb of transparency that receives less attention is the President’s push to have more Family Court judgments published. His direction that district judges should publish five family judgments a year, and Circuit judges between five and 10, was communicated to the judiciary during 2023 and formally confirmed in a practice guidance note in June 2024.
Although the judiciary is currently nowhere near coming close to meeting these targets (at least in part due to the time required for anonymisation), practitioners need to be alert to the risk of any judgment (at any stage of proceedings) being published. After all, if judges start complying with the guidance we can expect somewhere in the region of 6,000 published lower court judgments a year.
Based on the guidance, at particular risk of being published are judgments with the following features:
The guidance, and template transparency orders, contains strict guidelines on the information that must not be published in order to protect the anonymity of the parties and their children. While this might be sufficient to prevent jigsaw identification in most children cases, the level of information about parties’ ages, locations, professions and key dates still regularly included even in anonymised financial remedy judgments often means that parties can be identified – at least by those who know them.
Except in the rarest of cases where the court gives specific permission for the disclosure of protected details, children are generally protected by the terms of s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and s 97(2) of the Children Act 1989.
Neither of these statutes apply, however, to financial remedies proceedings. At present, most litigants in financial remedy proceedings achieve anonymity by convention. The latest guidance appears to enshrine that by use of transparency orders and a default rubric that records that failure to preserve the anonymity of participants ‘may be a contempt of court’.
It has been argued forcefully, both judicially and extra-judicially by Sir Nicholas Mostyn and the former President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, that such threats are baseless, and the practice that has developed of anonymising financial remedy judgments is contrary to clear House of Lords authority stretching back at least as far as Scott v Scott in 1912.
It would take a brave party, or reporter, to identify parties in breach of the reporting rubric, but there is clearly an arguable justification for someone who chooses to do so, and parties need to submit to a final hearing with such a possibility in mind. All it may take is one case where someone wants publicity and the other does not (Kyle Walker and Lauren Goodman come to mind) and the Court of Appeal will have the opportunity to withdraw anonymity from financial remedy judgments across the board.
For the time being, a party keen to avoid the details of their case being published (even if only on an anonymised basis) should at least consider the following:
Mark Harrop is a family barrister and arbitrator specialising in financial remedies at 1GC Family Law in London. Previously head of the London office of a boutique family law firm, he sits on the EDI and DR committees of Resolution.
Transparency rules are now in place across almost the whole of the family justice system. It is easy to be in favour of transparency in principle but still want to keep the intimate details of your own clients’ family disputes out of the limelight. This article considers how that can be achieved in this new era of openness.
In January this year, pilot schemes that had been trialled across a number of courts since 2023 were formalised in a new Practice Direction 12R to the Family Procedure Rules. Applying first to public law hearings before judges and extended to private law hearings before judges from 1 May 2025, the new practice direction will also apply to children hearings before magistrates from 29 September 2025.
Meanwhile, the separate scheme for financial remedy cases, while still technically a pilot, was extended to cover all courts on 29 January 2025.
Both schemes (children and financial) operate in a similar way. Under both schemes, a ‘reporter’ (who could be an accredited member of the press or a lawyer attending for journalistic, research or public legal education purposes) can sit in and observe almost any family court hearings (with certain exceptions, such as financial dispute resolution hearings in financial remedy proceedings and non-lawyer reviews in Family Drug and Alcohol Courts).
If a reporter attends the hearing, then the court will make a transparency order prescribing the information that anyone (including the reporter and the parties) can and cannot put in the public domain. In the case of children proceedings, the template order remains in force until the 18th birthday of the youngest child. The financial remedies template order has no standard end date but is to be kept under review by the court at each hearing.
The aim of the schemes is not an invitation for parties and their children to be identified, but to provide a mechanism for the system, and individual decisions made within it, to be held up to a greater level of public scrutiny than was possible simply through the publication of judgments.
The restrictions in the transparency orders are designed to allow examination of the decisions without having to identify any of the individuals involved. They are not intended to subvert the rules or case law protecting the anonymity of children within court proceedings, an outcome that seems to have been confirmed in the recent decision of Harris J in M v F and C [2025] EWHC 801 (Fam).
The fundamental change is that there is now a presumption that reports of proceedings can be published and the court would need to be persuaded why they shouldn’t be. Efforts to stop reporters attending have been slapped down by the courts (see Tickle v Father [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam)).
A second limb of transparency that receives less attention is the President’s push to have more Family Court judgments published. His direction that district judges should publish five family judgments a year, and Circuit judges between five and 10, was communicated to the judiciary during 2023 and formally confirmed in a practice guidance note in June 2024.
Although the judiciary is currently nowhere near coming close to meeting these targets (at least in part due to the time required for anonymisation), practitioners need to be alert to the risk of any judgment (at any stage of proceedings) being published. After all, if judges start complying with the guidance we can expect somewhere in the region of 6,000 published lower court judgments a year.
Based on the guidance, at particular risk of being published are judgments with the following features:
The guidance, and template transparency orders, contains strict guidelines on the information that must not be published in order to protect the anonymity of the parties and their children. While this might be sufficient to prevent jigsaw identification in most children cases, the level of information about parties’ ages, locations, professions and key dates still regularly included even in anonymised financial remedy judgments often means that parties can be identified – at least by those who know them.
Except in the rarest of cases where the court gives specific permission for the disclosure of protected details, children are generally protected by the terms of s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and s 97(2) of the Children Act 1989.
Neither of these statutes apply, however, to financial remedies proceedings. At present, most litigants in financial remedy proceedings achieve anonymity by convention. The latest guidance appears to enshrine that by use of transparency orders and a default rubric that records that failure to preserve the anonymity of participants ‘may be a contempt of court’.
It has been argued forcefully, both judicially and extra-judicially by Sir Nicholas Mostyn and the former President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, that such threats are baseless, and the practice that has developed of anonymising financial remedy judgments is contrary to clear House of Lords authority stretching back at least as far as Scott v Scott in 1912.
It would take a brave party, or reporter, to identify parties in breach of the reporting rubric, but there is clearly an arguable justification for someone who chooses to do so, and parties need to submit to a final hearing with such a possibility in mind. All it may take is one case where someone wants publicity and the other does not (Kyle Walker and Lauren Goodman come to mind) and the Court of Appeal will have the opportunity to withdraw anonymity from financial remedy judgments across the board.
For the time being, a party keen to avoid the details of their case being published (even if only on an anonymised basis) should at least consider the following:
Should you be worried if a ‘reporter’ attends your hearing, and which family judgments are most likely to be published? Mark Harrop considers current rules and practice in light of greater transparency in family law proceedings
Chair of the Bar sets out a busy calendar for the rest of the year
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Examined by Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Time is precious for barristers. Every moment spent chasing paperwork, organising diaries, or managing admin is time taken away from what matters most: preparation, advocacy and your clients. That’s where Eden Assistants step in
AlphaBiolabs has announced its latest Giving Back donation to RAY Ceredigion, a grassroots West Wales charity that provides play, learning and community opportunities for families across Ceredigion County
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
Come in with your eyes open, but don’t let fear cloud the prospect. A view from practice by John Dove
Anon Academic explains why he’s leaving the world of English literature for the Bar – after all, the two are not as far apart as they may first seem...
Review by Stephen Cragg KC
