Case No. ZC19D00073

(“H”). I handed down judgment on 30 March 2021. 2.The proceedings were heard in private in accordance with FPR 2010 Rule 27.10. They were attended by a number of accredited representatives of the media as provided for by Rule 27.11(2)(f). 3.At the commencement of the hearing I imposed an interim reporting restrictions order (RRO) which remains in place. In accordance with normal practice, I permitted the publication of the fact that the hearing was taking place before me and that the parties and their legal representatives could be identified. 4.I was referred to the judgment of Mostyn J in Appleton v Gallagher & others [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam), where at paragraph 24 he had granted an injunction prohibiting the media from publishing any report of the case that … (b) refers to or concerns any of the parties’ financial information whether of a personal or business nature … 5.I was anxious that a hearing taking place against what appeared to be a tight timetable might be disrupted by arguments about what was and what was not ‘the parties’ financial information’. Mr Farmer, speaking on behalf of the media, hypothesised certain situations where evidence might be given which the media wished to be free to publish and which would not be financial information. I determined that there should be no publication of the hearing beyond the identity of the parties and their representatives but said that if information or evidence was given during the hearing which it was asserted was not the parties’ financial information and which the media wished to publish, I would hear an application in respect of that material. No such application was made at any stage of the trial. 6.I now have to determine whether or not my judgment should be published either in full or in part and whether the RRO should remain in place. 7.Before I turn to the positions of the parties and the interested parties, I should refer to the limited measure of agreement that has emerged between the parties. Both sides agree that the award and the open position of each party should be made public. They were as follows:Lady Barclay8. She sought an award of £120m to be paid in two tranches over a period of 3 months from the date of judgment. She accepted that notwithstanding the very long marriage, the production of a sum of this size in relatively short order would require a substantial discount from a full sharing order. Sir Frederick Barclay9. He offered W: i)40% of the remaining loan notes due to him subject to the consent of the trustees of the trust which issued them, and in the meantime 40% of the net amount received by him from the trust by way of loan note redemption; ii)50% of such receipt as he might receive from the relevant trustees of the equity in the yacht and in the family home. As Mr Leech QC correctly pointed out, the effect of H’s offer might be that W would receive nothing as H’s trustees would not regard it as in his interest for the funds to be made available to him to pay to W.