info@transparencyproject.org.uk
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project
  • Legal Blogging
  • Posts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • About
  • Who
  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • Media
  • More search options
Select Page

The X Files (Or: the Truth is Out There — but can a civil court rehearing really find it?)

by Paul M | Nov 2, 2016 | Explanation, FCReportingWatch

In a judgment handed down today, Re X (No 3) [2016] EWHC 2755 (Fam) the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, decided to continue, despite the withdrawal of the birth parents concerned, a full re-hearing of the original allegations made in care...

Press regulation: why we are unimpressed by IPSO

by Paul M | Oct 17, 2016 | Comment, Transparency News

There are many things wrong with the way the national press reports legal matters, especially matters relating to the Family Court and the Court of Protection. But they are not going to get better unless and until the so-called regulator, IPSO, takes firmer action to...

Litigants in person – getting court documents well before the hearing begins

by Paul M | Oct 7, 2016 | Cases, Explanation

Conducting your own case as a litigant in person (LiP) is hard enough as it is, without being given a massive bundle of the other side’s documents and law reports at the door of the court, just as the hearing is about to begin. Last week a judge in the High Court...

IMPRESS Consultation on Draft Standards Code – The response of The Transparency Project

by Paul M | Sep 29, 2016 | Comment, Transparency News

In view of our mission to promote the fair and accurate reporting of legal issues, we felt the Transparency Project ought to respond to the consultation by IMPRESS on its draft standards code for the press. IMPRESS was established as an independent regulator –...

Giving a clear and simple judgment: how hard can it be?

by Paul M | Sep 16, 2016 | Cases, Comment

Newspaper reports of a judgment released this week have concentrated on the use, by the judge, of an emoji – probably a first in the Senior Courts. But the judgment is far more interesting for the way the judge, Mr Justice Peter Jackson, has written it so that...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Jolyon Maugham on Censorship by Meta? update on Pringle v Nervo
  • Linda on Sara Sharif -what we now know from the Safeguarding Review
  • Anon on Why doesn’t the family court punish professionals who break the rules?
  • Louisa Biggs on Hair strand testing – pitfalls and limitations
  • Lainie on ‘Oh I’m sorry, did I forget to mention you don’t have to agree to this?’ When social workers forget that interventions under ‘Child in Need’ are voluntary

Search for something in particular

More search options

May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    
  • Analysis
  • Cases
  • Comment
  • Consultations
  • Court of Protection
  • Dictionary
  • Events
  • Explanation
  • FCReportingWatch
  • FOI
  • Guidance Note
  • Legal blogging
  • Notorious
  • Open Reporting
  • Project
  • Reporting Pilot
  • Resources
  • Transparency News
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized

access to courts data adoption Adoption targets alienation anonymisation Article 8 assisted dying Cafcass care proceedings child protection children's views committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 IPSO journalist judgments legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct open justice parental alienation pathfinder psychologists publication remotejustice Section 20 agreements social work transparency

  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project, Charity Number 1161471.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.