Will court fee increase in family courts negatively impact access to justice?

Will court fee increase in family courts negatively impact access to justice?

When a relationship ends, those that are married or in a civil partnership have no option but to issue a divorce application if they want to legally formalise their separation. Along with the divorce application, separating couples may also need to pay for a financial order application and a parental order application. Here, Fiona Wood looks at the recent announcement that there will be an increase to all court fees in 2024, and raises the concern that low income households may find themselves unable to make necessary family applications.

If a couple do decide to divorce, as well as issuing a divorce applicaition, they also need to obtain a financial settlement which needs to be approved by a judge if it is to be binding and enforceable. Even if the separation is amicable, a court fee is payable when a divorce application is made and a court fee is payable when a financial agreement is submitted to court for a judge’s approval.

A court fee is also payable by separated parents if they are unable to agree arrangements for their children and need to make an application to court (known as a Parental Order application) to ask a judge to assist them with this issue.

If there are ongoing proceedings regarding finances or children, there can be additional smaller court fees that have to be paid within the court process.

You may be exempt from these fees if you have limited or no income and little or no savings. However, many of those making family court applications have to pay these fees.

The court fees were last increased in September 2021. It has recently been announced that there will be an increase of 10% in all court fees in 2024, including those in family cases. The date for the fee increase has not yet been announced. The main court fees in family proceedings are as follows:

  • Divorce application – current fee £593 – new fee £652
  • Financial Order application (if finances not agreed) – current fee £275 – new fee £303
  • Financial Order application (if agreed) – current fee £53 – new fee £58
  • Parental order application – current fee £232 – new fee £255

The rationale for the increase is that the court fees are needed to help fund the court system. We are told that in 2022/2023 cost £2.3 billion to fund the court system and £727 million of this was funded from court fees. As the cost of running the court system increases the fees are increased to assist with this cost.

Whilst it is understandable that money needs to be raised to fund that court system, there is a concern that increasing the court fees will prevent many on low incomes from making necessary family court applications.

Legal fees for those who have separated and who need to make an application asking court regarding finances or arrangements for their children, are a struggle for many who have limited income or savings. Legal Aid is only available in very limited circumstances to deal with the legal issues that can arise when a relationship ends. To qualify for Legal Aid not only must you have very limited income and capital, but there must also have been recent domestic violence.

For those of limited means who do not qualify for Legal Aid, many have no option but to represent themselves within the court process. The number of case where both spouses/cohabitees represent themselves within family court proceedings has increased by 25% between 2013 and 2022, which shows how many are struggling with funding the court process. Increasing the court fees will only make this more difficult for them and could leave some unable to afford access to the family court.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Do the Beckhams and Rooneys prove you should stay in a marriage and work at it?

Do the Beckhams and Rooneys prove you should stay in a marriage and work at it?

With the press full of stories about the Beckhams and Rooneys and their historical marriage woes, McAlister Family Law Partner, Lisa Brown, raises the question of whether it is the right thing to stay in a marriage when it is floundering or not?

Both the Beckhams and the Rooneys appear to have navigated troubled waters and arguably come out stronger but that is not always the case and there is no one right answer as to how hard is too hard when it comes to fighting for a relationship.

If I start divorce proceedings is there no way back?

From a legal perspective should you decide to start divorce proceedings there is still a way back until the final divorce order as you can effectively ask the court to cancel the proceedings.  It is rare that this happens as for lots of people the process of separating their finances and resolving issues in relation to the children can polarise them further.  Having said that there are couples who go through the entire process only to get re-married again!

Does it matter if I am the one who ends it?

Sometimes the making of the initial decision can be the hardest part and it can also colour how the parties deal with the practical elements of separation.  For example, where it was more one person’s desire than the others, they can feel guilty and end up walking away with less than they deserve.

The process of divorce and all that comes with it is inevitably driven by emotions, but parties do need to understand that with the financial settlement they only get one chance to get it right and if they agree something which is overly generous or, conversely, which doesn’t meet their needs they may end up regretting it.

From a legal point of view, it will not have any impact who ends the relationship nor whose fault it is.  Part of the reasoning behind that is that if some account was taken of who left who and the circumstances of that in determining either financial or child arrangement issues then the courts would be full of people arguing about whose fault the demise of the relationship actually was.   Relationships are complex and this would lead to greater uncertainty and cost in litigation.

So, what should I do?

There is perhaps a reluctance to speak to a divorce lawyer when a relationship may be struggling- almost as if in doing so you are accepting the relationship is over.  Like most things in life though it is far better to be aware of what might happen than end up potentially going into the situation blind.

Added to that there are many different myths about family law which are frequently repeated, but wholly inaccurate and inevitably most people will know somebody who has had a “bad” divorce with it being long fought, expensive, acrimonious or all of those things.  This can inadvertently impact your view and cause unnecessary stress and worry.

Speaking to somebody who can guide you through the legal process could help crystallise your decision one way or another.  A divorce/ family solicitor shouldn’t be pushing you into a divorce but instead should set out the various legal options and processes to allow you to make an informed decision.  Advice given is always completely confidential.

If you are in a relationship that is struggling at present my advice would be to speak to one of our specialist family solicitors so you can make a decision about your future with all of the facts.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

The Russell Brand Scandal: Does the UK need to alter the age of consent?

The Russell Brand Scandal: Does the UK need to alter the age of consent?

In light of Channel 4’s recently aired ‘Dispatches’ documentary which saw a number of women make allegations against Russel Brand, there are calls from the public to amend the age of consent in the UK. Here, McAlister Family Law’s Eleanor Drury explores at what a change in the law may look like.

Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’ documentary, saw a number of women make allegations of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse against comedian and online personality Russell Brand, including one allegation from a woman going by the name of Alice, who discloses that she first engaged in a sexual relationship with Brand aged just 16 whilst he was in his 30’s, there are calls from the public to amend the age of consent in the UK in order to protect teenagers from engaging in unhealthy and potentially dangerous relationships with older individuals.

At present, the legal age of consent in the UK is 16. This was introduced by virtue of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, to decriminalise 16 year olds who chose to engage in a sexual relationship with their peers. Despite English Law viewing anybody aged under 18 as a child, the law surrounding consent does not reflect this nor mirror the lack of autonomy given to 16 year olds in other areas such as the legal drinking, marriage, or voting age. Perhaps legislators failed to anticipate that the current law would allow for situations whereby children are able to consent to sex with adults double their age, where there is undoubtedly huge differences in status and significant power imbalances.

In the documentary, ‘Alice’ describes how Russell Brand would send cars to collect her from school and take her to his home where the pair would have sex. She claims that he became increasingly controlling, encouraging her to lie to her family and friends about their relationship and even sexually assaulted her by removing a condom without her knowledge. Research indicates that 16% of teenage girls with older boyfriends experience severe physical violence, compared to 6% of girls in a relationship with a partner of the same age. Naturally teenagers, by virtue of their age, are vulnerable and more likely to be targeted and manipulated by older individuals.

Any amendments to the law would need to be considered on a practical basis. Whilst some people are calling for it to be made illegal for anyone older than 21 to have sex with those aged between 16-18, this is arguably too restrictive and would create situations whereby a 20 year old could have a legal relationship one day, then the following day turn 21 and be open to punishment from the law. Perhaps a more workable solution would be to implement barriers within the law whereby 16 & 17 year olds can only consent to sex with somebody who is within 5 years of their age.

Age of consent varies around the world with some countries such as India, Turkey and Uganda setting 18 as the age in which a person can legally consent. In South Korea and Nepal, the age of consent is even higher; set at 20.

Whilst it is important to note that the age of consent across the world varies to reflect the traditions, religion, culture, and history of a particular country, it certainly interesting to consider if, and how, the UK might decide to vary legislation, particularly as the ‘Me Too’ movement continues to gain momentum.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

A three minute marriage – How soon can I get divorced?

A three minute marriage – How soon can I get divorced?

Rumours are circulating online about a couple in Kuwait who were married for a grand total of three minutes. Here, McAlister Family Law’s Heather Lucy looks at how this can happen and whether it would be legally possible in England and Wales.

A three-minute marriage? How is that possible? Apparently, the couple were married in front of a judge and, when they were leaving the courtroom, the bride stumbled. Instead of helping her, the groom mocked her, and the (rightfully?) angry bride asked the court to immediately bring their marriage to an end. The judge agreed and their marriage was dissolved. This may be an urban legend being spread on the internet, but it does pose the question of whether it would be possible to do the same in England and Wales.

In England and Wales, it is not possible to make an application for divorce until you have been married for 12 months. You then have to wait a further 20 weeks from when the court issues your application to become eligible for a conditional order which is the next step in bringing your marriage to an end. This cooling off period may feel unnecessary if you separated less than a year into your marriage but it is almost impossible to dispense with it.

The conditional order is a key step in your divorce. It means that the court are satisfied that you and your partner can be divorced (and you are able to apply for the final order 6 weeks and a day later), and it allows them to make orders about financial matters. This is often a key concern for people who are separating, and they are keen to have the certainty of a final order in place.

If you split up with your partner before a year has passed, then either one of you (or both of you together) might choose to apply to the court for a judicial separation order. These orders are also sometimes sought by people who may not want to divorce for religious reasons but who do want to separate.

It is key to note that a judicial separation order is different to a divorce. One important point is that being judicially separated does not mean that you are legally single and therefore you cannot remarry. Further, a divorce will impact any pre-existing wills and is relevant to the order of inheritance under intestacy laws, but you are still married if you are judicially separated so you will need to think carefully about reviewing your will.

If you judicially separate from your partner, you can apply to the court for a financial order. The range of powers open to the court differs from those available under divorce. The court cannot make a Pension Sharing Order if you are judicially separated and there can be no ‘clean break’ in respect of your finances. You can record that you and your partner intend to get divorced after a year has elapsed and that there should be a clean break order then, but this is not binding.

If you have been married for less than a year and want to legally separate from your partner, then it would be sensible to speak to a specialist family lawyer who can discuss your individual circumstances with you and set out your options moving forward.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Molly Mae and Tommy Fury get engaged – but what if they broke up?

Molly Mae and Tommy Fury get engaged – but what if they broke up?

Former Love Island contestants, Molly-Mae Hague and Tommy Fury have recently announced their engagement. The pair met on Love Island in 2019 and have been going strong ever since. But what happens if they break up? Here, Weronika Husejko looks at what a separation looks like legally, and what would happen with their daughter Bambi.

As many will know from their Instagram accounts, they have lived together for some time now, pretty much since their exit from Love Island in 2019. They also had their first child together at the beginning of this year, a baby girl called Bambi.

Whilst the happy couple are probably making wedding plans for their big day as we speak, you may wonder- what would happen if they broke up before they tied the knot?

The rules that apply to engaged couples are generally the same as those which apply to cohabiting couples upon separation. This means that they could not make a financial remedy claim under the same legislation that married couples usually would, that being the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

TOLATA

In terms of any property that the pair own together, any disputes in relation to this would be treated as a “ToLATA” claim. This is because the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 is the legislation which deals with disputes relating to the ownership of property or land.

In a situation where the property was purchased by both of them and it is clear from the title deeds how the property is held, there is less scope for dispute. However, if one of their names are not on the title deeds, it can become more complicated and will depend upon a number of facts.

Schedule 1

As the pair also have a child, Bambi, they may also be able to make an application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

This legislation allows separated parents to apply for various orders for the benefit of the child. This type of application is usually made by the parent with whom the child lives- so say if Bambi lived with Molly-Mae, she may apply for various orders under Schedule 1, depending on their respective financial circumstances of course.

Molly-Mae may be able to apply for the following orders on behalf of their daughter:-

  • Periodical payments
  • Secured periodical payments
  • Lump sum
  • Settlement of property
  • Transfer of property

Other avenues

There are actually some other pieces of legislation which provide engaged/ formerly engaged couples with certain rights. One example is that a fiancé may be able to claim a beneficial interest in property owned by their former fiancé albeit this would only apply in limited circumstances e.g., if the non-owning fiancé had made a contribution to substantially improving the property.

In summary, Molly-Mae and Tommy have various legal avenues they may be able to pursue if they did split during their engagement however, they would be very much dependent upon their individual financial circumstances.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner – What happens when parents disagree?

Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner – What happens when parents disagree?

Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner locked in relocation battle over their children. Here, McAlister Family Law Solicitor Nicola Bradley looks at what happens when parents disagree on which country their children should live in?

Game of Thrones star, Sophie Turner, and her pop-star husband, Joe Jonas, are currently going through a very public and increasingly acrimonious divorce. To add to their troubles, the pair are now engaged in a very heated court battle over the arrangements for their one year old and three year old daughters. It has been widely reported that Turner and Jonas cannot agree on where the children will live; Turner allegedly claims that Jonas has “abducted” the girls and is wrongfully retaining them in America, whilst a representative for Jonas has hit back with claims that the use of the word “abduction” is a serious abuse of the legal system and entirely misleading in the circumstances.

It can often be very difficult for parents to navigate the arrangements for children when a marriage or relationship comes to an end, but these problems are magnified when the dispute is over which country the children should live in.

In the first instance, parents should always try to sit down and talk this issue through in the hope that an agreement can be reached. In Turner and Jonas’ case, Turner argues that the pair had already agreed that the children would reside in the UK and that Jonas has since resiled from this by keeping the children in America and refusing to hand over their passports.

In circumstances where an agreement has broken down or where you cannot reach agreement, the parent wishing to relocate will need to apply for a Court Order allowing them to do so and permitting them to take the children with them. When making this decision, the paramount consideration of the Court will be the welfare of the children and whether a relocation would be in their best interests. When making this decision, the Court will have mind to a number of factors including but not limited to:-

  • the motivation of the parent making the application
  • whether the practical proposals have been well researched and investigated
  • The reasons for the other parent’s opposition to the relocation
  • The effect granting or not granting relocation would have on the children’s relationship with either their parents and their respective families

The Court will also take into the children’s wishes and feelings, so far as they can be ascertained. The older a child is, the more weight and emphasis will be placed on what they want to do and what they feel is right for them.

It is important to remember that neither parent can make a unilateral decision to take the children to another country. If one parent takes the children out of the jurisdiction without the expressed permission of the other parent, this amounts to abduction and emergency orders can be obtained for the summary return of the children to this country. Similarly, if you are concerned that the children are at risk of being taken out of the jurisdiction by the other parent, emergency orders can be sought to prevent this from happening.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Will Britney Spears be protected by prenup in third divorce?

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

News of Britney Spears’ pending divorce from her third husband, Sam Asghari, has been widely reported in the press. Sadly, only a year after their wedding, their marriage appears to be over, with Sam filing for divorce in Los Angeles. Here, McAlister Family Law’s Divorce and Finance Partner, Fiona Wood, looks at the divorce application and questions if Britney’s prenup will protect her.

It is understood that Sam has asked the court to provide him with “spousal support”, which is maintenance from Britney to meet Sam’s income needs whilst they sort out their divorce, and for her to provide him with money to pay his legal fees.

These applications made by Sam to the US court are the equivalent of making an application for interim maintenance and for a Legal Services Payment Order in England. If one spouse cannot meet their reasonable income needs during the divorce and the other spouse can afford to fund these, a judge can order the wealthier spouse to pay interim maintenance to the other spouse until a financial settlement is reached in their divorce.

It is also possible in England to make an application to court that your spouse provide you with money to fund your ongoing legal fees – known as a Legal Services Payment Order. To make this application successfully you have to show that you cannot afford to fund your own legal fees, you cannot obtain a commercial loan from two lenders to fund your legal fees and that your spouse can afford to pay them.

It is reported that Britney and Sam signed a prenuptial agreement before their wedding, to protect the wealth that Britney accumulated before they married.  Under Californian Law the prenuptial agreement is thought to be “ironclad”. However, there is speculation that Sam will try to renegotiate the terms of the prenuptial agreement by threatening to release embarrassing information about Britney.

The law in England regarding prenuptial agreements is different to that in other countries, but they are still an important way of protecting assets if you divorce. Here a prenuptial agreement is not automatically binding if a couple divorce. It is an important factor that the court will take into account when consider a fair financial settlement. The reported cases show that as long as both spouse’s needs can be met, the divorce court is likely to uphold the terms of their prenuptial agreement or if it does not fully uphold it, the presence of the prenuptial agreement will reduce the settlement received by one spouse from what they would have received if no prenuptial agreement had been signed.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

Separating from your spouse and getting divorced can be a very difficult and stressful experience for many reasons. You will probably have many questions. Here, Weronika Husejko takes a closer look at one of our most frequently asked questions by those about to go through the divorce process – do I have to go to Court?

In terms of the divorce itself, it is very rare that you will have to attend Court. The new ‘no fault’ divorce procedure does not allow for your spouse to dispute the divorce generally, unless they do not agree that the Court has jurisdiction or that the marriage was valid. This was not the case previously.

Prior to the no fault divorce procedure, the spouse applying for the divorce could apply for a Costs Order against the other spouse, effectively asking the Court that an Order is made that they pay all of their divorce costs. This was another reason for dispute in the past. However, the Court will now only make Costs Orders in divorce proceedings in very rare circumstances. As a result, there are now fewer opportunities for dispute in divorce proceedings, which significantly reduces the chance of any Court attendance.

When you are going through a divorce, the financial element is usually dealt with separately. Many couples are able to negotiate and reach a financial settlement outside of the Court arena e.g. via solicitors, mediation or between themselves. This would usually mean that you do not have to attend Court, unless you are already in Court proceedings at the time that you reach the agreement. When a financial settlement is reached in this way, a Consent Order reflecting your agreement can be submitted to the Court alongside a form which summarises your respective financial positions. The Court will usually consider this type of application on paper in the couple’s absence. They may request that the  couple attend Court in rare circumstances, for example, if they have serious concerns regarding the proposed division of the assets.

If one spouse makes an application to the Court for a financial remedy order, (this is an application asking the court to deal with the financial aspects of their divorce), this may result in both spouses having to attend Court. This is the most common reason for Court attendance generally within a divorce. This is because when financial remedy Court proceedings are issued, the case will automatically be listed for a ‘First Appointment’. This is an administrative hearing. However, more frequently these days, the need for this type of hearing is circumvented by the spouses agreeing the ‘directions’ which are needed to move the case forward e.g. the instruction of a surveyor to value a property.

The second hearing is the ‘Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment’. This is a negotiation hearing whereby both spouses will usually attend Court with their legal representatives. If the spouses do not reach an agreement at this hearing, the case will be listed for a ‘Final Hearing’, whereby they will have to attend Court to give evidence. However, this is less common as most cases settle at the negotiation hearing.

The short answer is that you do not necessarily have to attend Court in order to get a divorce. Whilst it is not always possible to avoid Court proceedings, divorcing couples are generally encouraged to try to reach an agreement outside of the Court arena. The best outcome in a divorce is arguably a financial settlement which the couple have agreed, as opposed to a decision which has been imposed upon them by a Judge.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Should we open a joint account?

Should we open a joint account?

There are lots of decisions to make during a relationship and perhaps even more so when parties begin cohabiting. One of the questions which sometimes comes up is whether or not you should have a joint bank account with your partner? Here, Lisa Brown looks at what a joint account means from the perspective of couples, the bank, and family law.  

This is obviously a personal decision and can vary between couples. It can be helpful from a practical point of view if you have a lot of joint expenditure, but it would be sensible to agree some ground rules about usage and how much each party is expected to contribute from the outset.

From the bank’s perspective, for example, if one party were to run up a large overdraft on a joint account, they would still generally consider that to a joint liability.  Similarly, from a family law point of view if a cohabiting couple are separating the starting point would be that assets are divided as they are held legally so any savings in a joint account should be shared equally, and any joint borrowing should be borne equally.

To have some clarity between you, it might be sensible to have a cohabitation agreement which can deal with how any assets would be divided on separation (including any joint accounts) and also, if you wish, how outgoings will be met during the relationship.

These agreements are not currently 100% binding, but they are very useful and are becoming more and more popular.

What about if you are married?

Lots of married couples have joint accounts but it is not a pre-requisite, and some choose not to.

Back in February Chloe Madeley hit the headlines when she revealed that she went back to work 8 weeks after giving birth citing the fact that she doesn’t have a joint account with her husband, James Haskell (and presumably that in effect they both financially support themselves).

Whilst obviously it is for every individual couple to decide on their own financial arrangements during their relationship this statement does give the impression that simply because there is no joint account there is no financial links or accountability between Chloe and James.

This is not the case for married couples or those in civil partnerships.  The legal starting point is quite different to couples who simply live together.  When you enter into a marriage or civil partnership you immediately gain the ability to make a wide range of financial claims against your partner (and likewise they have those claims against you).

If your marriage or civil partnership were to come to an end and you cannot agree how assets should be divided, then the court has the power to divide them between you in line with the factors set out in Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act.  These factors include (amongst other things) the assets and income of each party, length of the relationship and the contributions you have each made.

The court is not bound to consider monies in a joint account joint nor monies in one person’s sole name as money to be retained solely by them.

There can, however, be circumstances where it is relevant where monies have been held.  For example, if one party had received an inheritance the court may be more minded to exclude that from any settlement if it had always been kept separate in a sole account.

If you or somebody you know wants to understand their legal position better whether they are cohabiting, thinking about cohabiting, engaged or married they should contact one of our specialist family lawyers today.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning forced marriage, please get in touch with our team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Transparency in the Family Courts – the Dawn of a ‘New Norm’

Transparency in the Family Courts – the Dawn of a ‘New Norm’

Should the media report on the Family Courts? Here, Ruth Hetherington looks at the role of transparency in the family courts and how transparency orders will protect those families already under a lot of stress.

For many years now, on the whole, the Family Courts sit in private, which means no one else is allowed into the Court hearing except those people involved.  Some would say that there is a shroud of secrecy in the Family Courts and decisions are being made behind closed doors.  There has been a genuine reason for this … there is a need to protect the privacy of the people involved, particularly children balanced with having the public’s perception, trust and confidence about the way in which the family courts operate.

At present S.12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 prevents reporting of most family law cases in the absence of the Judges consent.  This legislation was intended to ‘protect and support the administration of justice’.

S.97 Children Act 1989 protects the identity of children.  It is a criminal offence if breached.

As it can be seen, currently there is little scope for reporting on any family case.

It would be fair to say that most family cases have been held in private, but the public only get to hear about ‘big money’ cases and predominantly the lives of celebrities when they hit the headlines.

The appetite however for the family courts to be more accessible has been a matter of discussion and debate for many years.  The President of the Family Law Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane intends to change all of that.

Sir Andrew McFarlane published a report in October 2021 entitled ‘Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts’.

The emphasis now is very much that the veil of secrecy and mystery associated with the family courts needs to be lifted, mainly to provide the public with confidence that the family courts are safeguarding children and their families.

Sir Andrew McFarlane says ‘the time has come for accredited media representatives to be able to not only attend hearings but to report publicly on what they see and hear.  Any reporting must however be subject to very clear rules to maintain anonymity of children and families and to keep confidential intimate details of their private lives.

Pilots are now running in Cardiff, Leeds and Carlisle, and they will continue throughout 2023 with data being collated.   In essence accredited media representatives and legal bloggers are permitted to attend court hearings, have access to documents and report on the outcome, subject to the terms of a Transparency Order.

Transparency orders will set out what can and cannot be reported on.  Reporters must and will be bound by that order.   The Transparency Order can be varied or removed at any point, by the Court.

The case needs to be conducted in an orderly way and not be prejudiced or compromised.  However, how this operates in practice forms part of the Pilot now running.

The pilot will start with public law cases (care proceedings) then private law children proceedings.

The jury is still out, as many family practitioners, are apprehensive of the changes as all families going through the family court are already experiencing stress and anxiety without having to deal with an added layer that their case could be reported on.  It may prevent or deter many vulnerable people in seeking access to justice at a time in their lives where help and support is needed.

The message is clear, confidence and confidentiality can be achieved and that there needs to be a major shift in culture.

Legal bloggers

Interesting concept and development within the Pilot in that anyone can ‘blog’ on the law, but can they just attend a hearing?  The answer is no. To be able to attend court hearings you must be a ‘duly authorised lawyer’. Blogging can only be for journalistic research or public, legal educational purposes. So…in the busy lives of family practitioners do they have time to attend other court hearings that they are not involved in, would they want to, could this be part of training for young lawyers entering the early part of their career.  It remans to be some as to whether there is the ‘up take’ on legal bloggers.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning divorce or family law, please get in touch with our team at McAlister Family Law.

MCALISTER HQ LOCATION:

Bass Warehouse
4 Castle Street
M3 4LZ

HOW CAN WE HELP?
HOW CAN WE HELP?

If your enquiry is urgent please call

+44 (0)333 202 6433