We’re posting a link to this new article by Sir James Munby, retired President of the Family Division, which has been published by the Financial Remedies Journal here – The Use and Misuse of the Rubric in the Family Courts
The article isn’t just about financial cases – it’s also about judgments in cases about children. Sir James says there’s a serious problem with rubrics because if they’re not written and published correctly, the media and other publishers won’t know what they can and can’t lawfully write about a case.
So what is a rubric? Basically it’s a heading to a document, but it’s also the word used for instructions at the beginning of an exam. In a way, a rubric on a court judgment is a combination of these.
Here is the rubric on the most recent Family Court judgment we found on The National Archives. The case was heard by Mr Recorder Adrian Jack and is called Re Cala and Daib [2024] EWFC 1 (Congratulations Mr Jack on getting the first judgment of 2024 to TNA.)
This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved.
All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
In the anonymised version, the children’s names have been changed.
Whereas the next most recent judgment has no rubric at all, although everyone seems to be anonymised, even the local authority. This was heard by HHJ Willans and is called A London Borough v J and others [2024] EWFC 2 [B]
Without even trying. we found an example of the sort of thing Sir James is worried about. In ‘Cala and Daib’, it couldn’t be clearer that the children’s identity must be protected. In ‘A London Borough’, there’s no explicit instruction about what is restricted, so any reader would have to know or to find the relevant law. And – strangely – these judgments are both from the same court (West London).
It’s important to have a rubric at the head of a published judgment because that means action can be taken in respect of any breach of the restrictions that are intended to protect children and families in these cases.
Here is the standard wording Sir James recommends as the most accurate for cases about children:
This judgment was delivered in private in proceedings heard in private to which the provisions in section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 [INCLUDE IF THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT YET CONCLUDED and section 97 of the Children Act 1989] apply. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment and in any report of or commentary on the proceedings the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.
You can see that the wording in ‘Cala and Daib’ almost complies with this, although Sir James prefers to include the legislative basis of the restriction.
The position regarding financial remedies cases isn’t so straightforward, as is clear in the article. For children cases though, we agree with the very helpful proposals Sir James puts forward, which he says could be brought in without any formal rule changes.