Court of Appeal Rules on Publication of Family Division Judgment in Re T (Children)

Introduction

The Court of Appeal has delivered a significant ruling in the case of Re T (Children: Publication of Judgment), addressing the complex issue of whether a Family Division judgment should be published in an anonymised or unanonymised form.

The case involved a long-standing parental conflict over child arrangements, with the mother and father embroiled in litigation since 2013. The judgment in question was delivered by Mrs Justice Arbuthnot in January 2024, concerning the welfare of their son, T, who was nearly 16 years old at the time.

Background

The case has a lengthy history, with over 70 hearings and six substantial unpublished judgments. The parents' marriage broke down when T and his sister S were young, leading to prolonged legal disputes over child arrangements. The mother sought to stop contact between T and his father, while the father wanted an order for continued contact until T turned 18.

Mrs Justice Arbuthnot's welfare judgment found that the mother had manipulated the children into believing she was a victim of domestic abuse, while the father, though lacking insight, was deemed a decent man whose contact with his children should be encouraged. The judge ordered that contact should continue until T reached 16, with a further order under s. 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 until he turned 18.

Publication Judgment

In a subsequent judgment on 2 February 2024, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot addressed the issue of publication. She decided that the judgment should be published in an anonymised form immediately, with the possibility of publishing an unanonymised version when T turned 18 in 2026. The judge weighed the principles of open justice and transparency against the children's right to privacy, ultimately concluding that the parents should be named but the children should remain anonymised.

Appeal

Both parents appealed the welfare judgment, and the mother also appealed the publication judgment. The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Peter Jackson, considered the competing interests of transparency and privacy, particularly focusing on the potential impact on the children.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the mother's appeal against the publication order. The court found that the judge had not adequately considered the potential harm to the children from future publication and that the balance of interests did not justify naming the parents. The court ruled that the judgment should remain anonymised, with liberty for the father to apply for further publication after T's 18th birthday.

Implications

This ruling highlights the challenges of balancing transparency and privacy in family law cases. It underscores the importance of considering the long-term impact on children and the need for careful judicial discretion in publication decisions. The decision sets a precedent for how similar cases should be handled, emphasizing the protection of children's privacy while acknowledging the public interest in understanding family court proceedings.

Legal Representatives

Maria Scotland represented the appellant mother, while Michael D. Jones KC and Liam Kelly represented the respondent father, all instructed pro bono through Advocate.

Judicial Panel

The judgment was delivered by Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Peter Jackson, and Lord Justice Newey.

Case Citation Reference

[2024] EWCA Civ 697