Case No. ZZ20D49528

. (emphasis added)80.The 1858 Act was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1892 as “unnecessary” following the abolition of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes and the transfer of its jurisdiction to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division (PDA) of the new High Court of Justice by sections 16 and 34 of the Judicature Act 1873. But its principles lived on. Thus, the first edition of Rayden on Divorce (Butterworth & Co 1910) states at page 6 para 11 that:“ … Judges’ summonses are heard, with the same powers as if in open Court, in the Judge’s private room [adding in a footnote] usually at 10.30 on Saturdays”There was a sound practical reason for these arrangements. The Royal Courts of Justice did not open until 1882. From 1858 until 1882 the new Divorce Court sat with the three common law courts in Westminster, where the accommodation was very cramped. Thus, it would have made sense to allow as much business as possible to be dealt with in the judge’s private room.81.Rayden says this about the business of the PDA at page 6:“7. The Judges of the Divorce Division sit, at the Royal Courts of Justice, at the same times as the other Judges of the High Court, ordinarily in open Court.8. Power to sit in camerâ is inherited from the Ecclesiastical Courts which, however, so far as reported, appear to have only so acted in cases of nullity of marriage, for incapacity. 9. In cases where the ends of justice might be defeated, owing to the difficulty of obtaining the necessary evidence from witnesses in open Court the Judges sometimes exercise their inherent jurisdiction, and exclude the public from the Court during the whole, or part, of the hearing.10. Occasionally, when the details of the case are very unpleasant, the Judge clears the Court of women and children.11. It is the practice to hear motions in Court …”82.It can therefore be seen that from the very start of the era of judicial divorce the proceedings had to be conducted either in open court or in chambers “as if sitting in open court”. There is not the slightest hint in the originating legislation that those proceedings would be secret and thus prohibited from being reported to, or discussed by, the public, save in nullity cases alleging incapacity or where the ends of justice might be defeated. On the contrary, section 3 of the 1858 Act clearly required justice to be administered openly whether the proceedings were in chambers or in court. And as will be seen, that principle was reiterated by section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.83.Certain business could be dispatched by Registrars. Section 4 of the 1858 Act provided: