[2017] EWFC 25
. As Mostyn J explained in the latter case at para 110, "I have not given leave for that decision to be reported as the case is incapable of camouflage and were its details to be reported there may be adverse economic consequences." (10)
The principles set out above are unaffected by the change in the rules incorporated in FPR r.27(11)(2)(f) and Practice Direction 27B, under which duly accredited representatives of news gathering and reporting organisations are permitted to attend hearings in the family court unless the judge orders otherwise. I respectfully agree with the observations made by Mostyn J in Appleton v Gallagher
, supra, at paras 12 to 14, DL v SL, supra, para 1, and again in
- The Hon. Mr Justice Cohen :
- Appleton v Gallagher & others [2015]
- EWHC 2689 (Fam)
- Sir Frederick Barclay
- The Court Order
- H’s submissions
- W’s submissions
- The Media
- The wider family (The Interested Parties)
- Discussion
- XW v XH (No.2) [2018] EWFC 44
- [1913] AC 417
- Family Procedure Rules ("FPR") rule 27.10
- Clibbery v Allen
- [2005] 1 AC 593
- , [2012]
- Lykiardopulo
- (Fam)
- Appleton v Gallagher [2015] EWHC 2689
- [2017] EWFC 25
- [2010] EWCA Civ 1315
- McCartney v Mills
- McCartney [2008] EWH 401 (Fam)
- the press
- The criticisms made of H
- FLR 681
- Conclusion
