Dale Vince, described on Wikipedia as ‘a British Green energy industrialist, former New Age traveller’ attracts a good deal of publicity whether it’s his political donations, owning a ‘green’ football team, or taking libel actions against publishers who wrongly accused him of being pro-Hamas. Not your average family court user then.
Dale Andrew Vince v Kate Vince [2024] EWHC 406 (Fam)
We’re writing about this recent judgment from Mr Justice Cusworth because it includes some discussion points about the limits of transparency orders in financial remedy cases, specifically about who can see which documents released under the order. If a journalist (or legal blogger) didn’t attend the hearing, can they see confidential court documents that were given to one who did?
At the point in December 2024 when the judge was handing down his judgment on the financial dispute between Mr Vince and his ex wife, some questions had arisen about court papers having been passed to journalists who had not actually attended the hearing (presumably not by either party).
The judge pointed out that this case was unusually high-profile in having four or five journalists attending each day and publications emerging in many other new sources. It was therefore likely that more reporters apart from those attending would ask to see documents and quote from them. The lawyers for Mr Vince objected to this happening and wanted any information that had been distributed beyond those reporters who’d attended immediately destroyed. However, the judge said that not all media organisations could send in a reporter, even to a newsworthy case, and that if every reporter who wanted to write but hadn’t attended had to try to contact the court office for copies of what the reporters present had been allowed to read, the system would be clogged.
The judge considered the relevant cases and ‘The Transparency Reporting Pilot for Financial Remedy Proceedings: Guidance from the President’ (2023) and thought that some tips on sharing documents in an unusual case like this would be helpful.
Whilst that guidance was plainly drafted in anticipation of the dissemination of documents to actual attendees, it cannot have been its intention that once any such documents were in the hands of a particular reporter, no other would ever have sight of their contents unless the first reporter chose to publish them. [para 9]
However, he added, anyone who did receive documents later must also receive the Transparency Order (‘TO’). He considered the questions that arose:
- Mr Vince’s lawyers argued that only journalists who were in court should be able to see court documents. The judge did not agree this was the right balance in this particular case.
- If other journalists had to rely on the knowledge of those who attended, and couldn’t read the papers, their reporting might be less accurate. If a document was suitable for one journalist, it was suitable for all (provided they had been served with the TO).
- Just because a journalist attends parts of a hearing, that does not necessarily make them any better qualified to report than one who wasn’t there but has read the documents.
- Reporters who plan to attend will need to see documents before the hearing (to better understand what they hear) but if a journalist is not planning to attend, it is suggested that the documents should be sought and sent out after the hearing.
- If a journalist isn’t in court, how can their coverage be regulated? Before a TO is made, the documents remain confidential and therefore can’t be reported on. When a TO is made, the journalists attending are bound by it and documents can also be sent to journalists who are not attending, if requested, along with the TO.
- Passing on documents from a reporter who attended one who didn’t – this can be allowed once the first journalist has received documents subject to a TO even if they aren’t working in the same team, provided they are being passed to accredited reporters who are also bound by the TO.
To sum up, Cusworth J said that reporters who want to read documents, such as the parties’ position statements, can ask for these on a confidential basis if they hope to attend. Once at court, a TO can be made so they know what they can write. Before the hearing, they should not pass documents on, and nor should other journalists who don’t intend to go to court ask for them.
The TO template for financial cases
The standard document the court uses to draft the order is available here.
The names of reporters who attend are to be listed near the beginning of the order.
Para 7 says the TO will be served on reporters who attend.
Para 11 says that reporters who attend are entitled to see some documents.
Para 15 says that reporters can share documents with their editorial teams or legal advisers, but para 16 says – with no one else.
Therefore before any attending reporter or party passes on a document to a colleague, after the hearing, they will need to check this is allowed by the TO in their case. Cusworth J agreed this sort of sharing was to be permitted in Vince but as the final TO he made in this case isn’t in the public domain, we don’t know exactly how far it varies from the template.
Relevance to cases about children
TOs in children cases have been more regularly used and for longer and have been subject to more refinement and scrutiny than TOs in financial remedy cases, which may still be catching up. Financial remedy proceedings are still under a pilot scheme while children case TOs are now more established in rules and a Practice Direction, PD12R FPR.
One difference is that the TO in children cases does not require a list of reporters who attended. We don’t know why this happens in finance cases but not children cases.
Para 21 of the children cases TO template says:
- Where a case has significant media interest and other accredited journalists or legal bloggers are likely to need to see documents a party, legal representative or reporter may also share documents with another accredited journalist or legal blogger providing:
- That the accredited journalist or legal blogger is provided with a copy of this order.
- That the accredited journalist or legal blogger writes to the court by email to confirm that they have made a request for documents, and that they have been sent a copy of this order, and they understood that they are to be bound by it.
So the standard position in a children case is as recommended by Cusworth J in Vince.
Comment
If we look at the two templates – for children and for finance, it’s clear that in a children case, a reporter can pass documents on to another reporter who didn’t attend, if that reporter confirms their understanding of the TO to the court.
As indicated above, it may be that because financial remedies reporting is still a pilot, this hasn’t been ironed out yet – but in either scheme it is always open to the judge to adjust the terms of the TO to fit the needs of the particular case when it is made (usually at the point when reporters first attend). It appears that Cusworth J is suggesting that in cases with similarities to the Vince case, the sharing of documents (accompanied by the TO) is likely and should be permitted, but his judgment doesn’t identify whether the standard TO wording in finance cases does or doesn’t allow this. We suggest that judges check and adjust the terms of TO template when first making a TO in the individual case, so that the position is clear. Reporters should ask for clarification or variation of an order if required.
Image: Shutterstock: Private,Investigator,Desk,With,Confidential,Envelopes
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. We’re working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it. We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.