Following consultation with the Ms. Justice Nuala Jackson and Mr. Justice Max Barrett, the judges assigned to the Family Division of the High Court, the President of the High Court issues the following notice concerning the publication of judgments and transparency in family proceedings.
- General Principle
All written family law judgments – whether delivered on a reserved or ex tempore (a decision in a case soon or straight after hearing) basis – are published in due course, subject to the statutory requirements for anonymity and the removal of identifying details. This reflects the constitutional and statutory commitment to transparency in the administration of justice, balanced against the heightened privacy interests inherent in family law proceedings and the best interests of the children involved.
- Timing of Publication
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, an appropriate 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.
- Completed Matters
Where an entire matter has been resolved – e.g., in cases involving international return orders under the Hague Convention, where all issues including costs have been determined and parties have no further submissions – the judgment may be published without delay.
- Exceptional Sensitivity
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. This discretion is applied sparingly and is subject to continuous review.
- Redaction Practices
Redaction must comply with the statutory anonymity regime, but good practice goes beyond mere compliance. In particular:
- Actual initials of parties should not be used, as these can readily identify individuals in small communities or professional contexts.
- Neutral, non-traceable identifiers should be employed (e.g., “the mother”, “the father”, “the child”, “Person A”, “Location B”).
- Any details that, in combination, may permit identification should be removed or generalised.
- In ease of locating judgments concerning particular issues and having regard to the use of initials rather than names, the primary subject areas addressed in the judgment will be included in brackets after the case name.
- Ultimate 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.
- Issues arise (including that consultation with parties may be required) in relation to redaction/anonymisation.
In such cases, publication may be deferred until the substantive proceedings have concluded or for another appropriate period, having regard to the considerations above.
Subject to the above principles, all judgments, save in circumstances of exceptionality, will ultimately be published. Deferred publication is a procedural safeguard, not an exemption from transparency. The objective is to uphold both open justice and the dignity and privacy of family litigants.
12 December 2025
Mr Justice David Barniville
President of the High Court
