A v M (Family Proceedings: Publicity)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 2000 |
| Year | 2000 |
| Date | 2000 |
| Court | Family Division |
Family proceedings – Children – Restrictions on publicity – Injunctive relief – Restraint of parent making public allegations rejected by court in proceedings relating to children – Welfare of children – Court’s power to grant injunctive relief to protect children from damage.
Following their divorce both parents sought contact and residence orders in respect of their two children. During the course of the proceedings, which were held in private, the mother made allegations about the father, many of which were central to her case that the children should live with her, and which the court rejected. After failing to obtain those orders, the mother made statements to the press in which she repeated her allegations. On 3 September 1999 a High Court judge imposed injunctions restraining the mother and her partner from disclosing, inter alia, the contents of documents before the courts. The mother and her partner decided to withdraw from the proceedings and no representations were made on their behalf. The father applied for further injunctive relief to restrain the mother and her new partner from continuing to make public through the media, or the internet, or otherwise, allegations advanced in the proceedings relating to the children.
Held – There was an established principle that the court had jurisdiction in personam to restrain any act by a parent which, if unrestrained, would or might adversely affect the welfare of the child who was the subject of the proceedings. That principle and its application did not depend, although it might be served by, all or part of the proceedings being in private, and it was not based on duties of confidentiality. The repetition of information that had been placed in the public domain could be damaging to a child. Where, as in the present case, the court proceeded on the basis that the welfare of the children was a relevant rather than a paramount consideration in determining whether injunctive relief should be granted, it had to conduct a balancing exercise. On the facts of the present case, the evidence clearly indicated that the mother and her partner would continue to seek to make public allegations advanced by the mother in the family proceedings. In performing the balancing exercise, it was apparent that the case was one of those rare occasions where notwithstanding the existence of powerful public interests which could lead to injunctive relief being refused, as the children were highly likely to suffer damage if the allegations were repeated or asserted by the media, the balance pointed all one way. Accordingly, having regard to the court’s inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctions to promote the welfare of children and to protect damage being done to them, it was in the
overall public interest in the circumstances of the present case to grant the injunctions sought.
Cases referred to in judgmentG (minors) (celebrities: publicity), Re[1999] 3 FCR 181, [1999] 1 FLR 409, CA.
PB (a minor) (hearing in private), Re[1996] 3 FCR 705; sub nom Re P-B (a minor) (child cases: hearing in open court) [1997] 1 All ER 58, [1996] 2 FLR 765, CA.
W (a minor) (wardship: publicity), Re[1992] 1 FCR 231; sub nom Re W (a minor) (wardship: restriction on publication) [1992] 1 All ER 794, [1992] 1 WLR 100, [1992] 1 FLR 99, CA.
ApplicationFollowing their divorce the father applied for injunctive relief against the mother and her new partner to restrain them from making public through the media or otherwise allegations advanced by the mother in proceedings for contact and supervision orders in respect of the children of the marriage. The facts are set out in the judgment of Charles J.
Philip Cayford (instructed by Manches) for the father.
The wife did not appear.
Cur adv vult
9 September 1999. The following judgment was delivered.
CHARLES J.I have before me applications for injunctive relief made by the applicant (M) against his former wife, (A) and the gentleman with whom she is now living, who I understand she plans to marry (T).
As I explained in a short judgment that I gave in open court on Tuesday, 7 September 1999, I made injunctions against both A and T last Friday without hearing from them. On Tuesday A and T were given the opportunity to consider whether they wanted an adjournment, and their position generally in respect of the application for injunctions. After considering their positions, they told me that they did not want to take any further part in these proceedings. I should add that it was made quite clear to both of them that if they had wanted an adjournment to enable them to put their respective positions to the court it would be granted, and the issues before the court would have been what injunctions should be made over the period of that adjournment.
The injunctions that I granted relate, amongst other things, to the contents of documents, statements and other evidence filed in proceedings before the courts in this country and France.
Before referring to the facts of this case and the principles relating to the grant of the injunctions sought, it is, I think, relevant and important to record briefly the nature of those proceedings and, in very brief outline, the principles involved in them.
The first set of proceedings relate to the divorce of M and A and, most importantly in the present circumstances, the determination by the court of issues as to where the children should live and the contact they should have with their parents, and thus, in terms of the Children Act 1989, with residence and contact orders.
Section 1 of the 1989 Act applies to those proceedings. Subsection (1) of that section provides:
‘When a court determines any question with respect to—(a) the upbringing of a child; or (b) the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.’
The section goes on to set out certain matters that the court has to have regard to in determining what best promotes a child’s welfare.
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Stedman
...may not be so in privacy cases involving vulnerable children who are wards of court. He points to Re X, Y (Children) [2004] EMLR 29 and to A v M [2000] 1 FLR 569 where, on the particular facts of the case and having carried out the balancing act, the court decided that there would be no 'pu......
-
East Sussex County Council v Stedman and othersRe Stedman
...995 distinguished. Accordingly, the application would be dismissed. Cases referred to in judgmentA v M (family proceedings: publicity) [2000] 1 FLR 562. A-G v Greater Manchester Newspapers Ltd (2001) Times, 7 December, [2001] All ER (D) 32 A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1988] 3 All E......
-
Kelly v BBC
...revealed to the person affected by the result of the application. Cases referred to in judgmentA v M (family proceedings: publicity) [2000] 1 FCR 1, [2000] 1 FLR 562. A v UK (1997) 25 EHRR CD 159, ECt HR. Abrams v US (1919) 250 US 616, US SC. A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC......
-
British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly
...Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [1997]Fam 1, In re G (Celebrities: Publicity) [1999] 1 FLR 409 and A v M (Family Proceedings: Publicity) [2000] 1 FLR 562. I say no more about this branch of the court's jurisdiction since it is common ground that I am concerned excl......