High Court guidance on family-law judgments
A notice from the President of the High Court has said that all judgments in family-law cases before the court will ultimately be published, except in “circumstances of exceptionality”.
The guidelines on publication of such cases have been issued by Mr Justice David Barniville after consultation with Ms Justice Nuala Jackson and Mr Justice Max Barrett, the judges assigned to the family division of the High Court.
The notice says that, as a general principle, all written family-law judgments are published in due course, subject to the statutory requirements for anonymity and the removal of identifying details.
‘Measured approach’ to timing
On the timing of publication, the High Court President says that, while the default position is timely publication once a written judgment has issued, family-law matters sometimes require “a measured approach” to timing.
In practice, the notice states that a delay can be appropriate where:
- The parties are self-represented or particularly vulnerable, and/or may benefit from an opportunity to read and, where necessary, clarify aspects of the written judgment before publication,
- The judgment concerns interlocutory issues, and publication before final resolution could hinder settlement discussions or disrupt efforts at reconciliation,
- Immediate publication may enable public matching of court dates to litigants, thereby undermining the statutory anonymity owed to parties, and
- Issues arise in relation to redaction or anonymisation.
“Deferred publication is a procedural safeguard, not an exemption from transparency,” Mr Justice Barniville says.
The notice provides guidance on redaction of judgments, saying that the actual initials of parties involved should not be used, while neutral, non-traceable identifiers – such as ‘the mother’, ‘the father’, and ‘person A’ – should be used.
“Any details that, in combination, may permit identification should be removed or generalised,” the High Court President states.
Vulnerable parties
The notice says that, in rare circumstances, even with redaction, publication may risk identification within a particular community.
“In such cases, and only where justified by the protection of vulnerable parties or the integrity of ongoing obligations, publication may be withheld,” it states, adding that this discretion is applied “sparingly” and is subject to continuous review.
“Subject to the above principles, all judgments, save in circumstances of exceptionality, will ultimately be published,” the notice states.