- 'It's Been in the Family For Years' is No Argument26th Jul 2010
- Driving: Mobile Phone, No - Dictaphone, Yes19th Jul 2010
- 'Toxic Sofa' Victims Win Compensation12th Jul 2010
- Canoe Fraudsters Must Repay Nearly £600,0006th Jul 2010
- In Brief - HMRC to Name and Shame Tax Dodgers28th Jun 2010
- Who Chooses the Executor?14th Jun 2010
- Chef Entitled to Second Helping of Justice7th Jun 2010
- Court Agrees to Reverse Settlement Error2nd Jun 2010
- Privacy Cases Will Be Dealt With On Their Facts25th May 2010
- Smoker Loses Out in Asbestos Settlement18th May 2010
- Man Wins Planning Battle Over House Disguised as a Barn12th May 2010
- Sikh’s Widow Awarded £415,000 for Egg Allergy Death5th May 2010
- General Intention Cannot Preserve Will27th Apr 2010
- Car Turning Area Creates Right Over Property14th Apr 2010
- iPod Deafness is User's Fault30th Mar 2010
- Summary of Budget Changes for Individuals25th Mar 2010
- Compensation for Honeymoon Ruined by Dysentery15th Mar 2010
- Mercy Killing is Not the Same as Assisted Suicide8th Mar 2010
- Husband Ordered Out of Ancestral Home23rd Feb 2010
- Verbal Will Directs £1/2 Million to Aunt27th Jan 2010
- £140,000 Mesothelioma Payout for Grandfather22nd Jan 2010
- Will Writer in the Dock15th Jan 2010
- Will Valid if Testator Had Capacity When it Was Drafted6th Jan 2010
- European Inheritance Law Overhaul Proposed23rd Dec 2009
- Supervision Failure Costs Council14th Dec 2009
- £240,000 for Holidaymaker Poisoned by Worm9th Dec 2009
- Ward & Rider Achieve Lexcel and Bronze IIP Accreditation1st Dec 2009
- Bank Charges Decision 27th Nov 2009
- Funding the First Step On the Ladder23rd Nov 2009
- Nightjack 'Outing' Bodes ill for Bloggers 18th Nov 2009
- When Equal Shares Change9th Nov 2009
- Executor With Hand in Till Jailed3rd Nov 2009
- Asbestos Damages for Widower26th Oct 2009
- Deskbound Worker Wins Compensation For Blood Clot19th Oct 2009
- Don’t Get Angry With the Council!12th Oct 2009
- Family Court Protects Children From Media Intrusion5th Oct 2009
- Pensions Case Moves to Europe23rd Sep 2009
- Estate Property - HMRC Recommend Three Valuations23rd Sep 2009
- Judge Uses Discretion in Contact Proceedings Case16th Sep 2009
- Past Exposure to Noise Warrants Compensation8th Sep 2009
- What Happens if I Don't Make a Will?28th Aug 2009
- Be Careful What You Claim For19th Aug 2009
- Swine Flu - Guidance for Employers10th Aug 2009
- Child Maintenance Rule Changes7th Aug 2009
- Stay Where You Are!4th Aug 2009
- PreNuptial Agreements - Parliament Must Act if Law to Change29th Jul 2009
- Easements - What They Mean at the Time22nd Jul 2009
- £10,000 for Vibration Injury14th Jul 2009
- Shared Residence Does Not Create Priority Housing Need13th Jul 2009
- Planning Permission is Only Part of the Story10th Jul 2009
- Risk Minimisation Necessary, Says Court6th Jul 2009
- Executors be Warned2nd Jul 2009
- Delayed Lump Sum Payments on Divorce1st Jul 2009
- E-Conveyancing - Where Are We Now?29th Jun 2009
- Cyclist Riding Without Helmet Awarded Full Compensation10th Jun 2009
- Making the Boundaries Clear10th Jun 2009
- Credit Crunch - Divorce Settlements in the Spotlight10th Jun 2009
- New Website Goes Live!27th May 2009
Family Court Protects Children From Media Intrusion
The children of celebrities have the same right to anonymity in court proceedings as any other children, following a ruling of the High Court.
The press have only been allowed into the family courts since April 2009 and can be excluded by the court when matters sensitive to a child are involved. However, the level of press interest is not by any means the same in all cases and the court recently had to decide whether or not to exclude the press when faced with a 'media circus' surrounding the child of a celebrity couple.
Sir Mark Potter, president of the family division, stated that 'in considering whether to exclude the press .... the focus is on the interests of the child ...' and that courts should 'have regard to the nature and sensitivities of the evidence'. Judges should ask themselves whether the press interest represents public curiosity or legitimate public interest.
In the case in point, reporting the evidence given during the proceedings would be distressing to the child and the interest of the press only arose because of the celebrity of the parents.
It will come as a relief to many parents that at what is normally a distressing time for all, the courts will act to protect children where media intrusion would be against their best interests.




















