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
Archie Battersbee – best interests assessment in the High Court 

Archie Battersbee – best interests assessment in the High Court 

by Emma Nottingham | Jul 16, 2022 | Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

The Archie Battersbee litigation has featured a series of different applications. The first, back in April 2022, resulted in a decision that it was lawful for clinicians to undertake brain stem testing, despite the parent’s objections. The brain stem testing could not...

News from the 8th open FJC meeting: getting the covert recording guidance done

by Alice T | Jul 12, 2022 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

I registered for the latest Family Justice Council open meeting to find out what was going on, and to ask about the long-promised guidance on covert recording. The covert recording guidance turned out to be on the agenda. But the meeting was generally...

Defamation and domestic abuse – an update

by Julie Doughty | Jul 6, 2022 | Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch, Legal blogging

The judgment in Lee v Brown [2022] 1699 EWHC (QB) has now been published on TNA.  We wrote about the case after I attended one day of a hearing on 20 June.  This update isn’t going to go into detail on defamation law but will, I hope, explain further why I...
Archie Battersbee – best interests assessment in the High Court 

Archie Battersbee Case – The hearing in the Court of Appeal

by Emma Nottingham | Jun 30, 2022 | Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch, Legal blogging

Background on the case so far The case concerns 12-year-old Archie, who is currently receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital following an accident in the home in April 2022, which led to brain damage. In May, the court granted permission for Archie to receive...
The National Archives and Family Court transparency – a temporary glitch?

The National Archives and Family Court transparency – a temporary glitch?

by reporting watch team | Jun 29, 2022 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

The drive over the last decade toward greater Family Court transparency has been hugely dependent on the rapid and efficient publication of judgments by BAILII. So when, last year, it was announced that The National Archives would be taking over the primary function...

Remote observation of court hearings – new rules

by Lucy R | Jun 27, 2022 | FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

UPDATE 24 JULY: This post has been amended to further clarify the position in the Court of Protection. From today, Tuesday 28 June 2022, courts will have new powers to allow journalists and members of the public to observe hearings remotely. While many judges will now...
Domestic abuse and defamation

Domestic abuse and defamation

by Julie Doughty | Jun 22, 2022 | Cases, FCReportingWatch, Legal blogging

This is a post about a defamation trial where one party (the claimant – C) is claiming the other party (the defendant – D) has caused his reputation serious harm by making statements that allege domestic abuse by C against D. Far removed from the recent...
The unintended consequences of law – a postscript

The unintended consequences of law – a postscript

by Lucy R | Jun 21, 2022 | Cases, Comment, FCReportingWatch

Not long ago I wrote a tiresomely long post about what I will call the transparency in financial remedy (FR) cases, a topic about which there has been much recent debate (see Very Much Ancillary). Others may quibble about the use of the term ‘transparency’ but to me...
Another Financial Remedy case where anonymity was refused

Another Financial Remedy case where anonymity was refused

by Lucy R | Jun 20, 2022 | Analysis, Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch

The recent judgment in the case of Gallagher v Gallagher (No.1) (Reporting Restrictions) [2022] EWFC 52 is a sequel to the previously anonymised case of XZ v YZ [2022] EWFC 49. As the title suggests, having made an interim anonymity order, Mr Justice Mostyn decided in...

When family members apply to become parties: A hidden and “private” (but not sinister and secret) hearing

by Guest Post | Jun 10, 2022 | Comment, Court of Protection, Transparency News

In the first of two linked guest posts, Celia Kitzinger explains the problem with the confusing and inconsistent way Court of Protection cases are currently listed, making it more difficult for public observers to attend the hearing. (This post is reproduced with...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • S on A failed reunification plan
  • Charles Prest on Sir James Munby’s greatest hits: an appreciation of his work
  • Lucy Reed on Sending a mother to prison for contempt of court
  • Lucy Reed on Hair strand testing – pitfalls and limitations
  • Lucy Reed on Children and parents speak up about the Pathfinder in private law – new research published

Search for something in particular

More search options

February 2026
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728  
« Jan    
  • 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 Article 10 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 drug testing Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 judgments judiciary legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct open justice parental alienation 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.