温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/independent-news-and-media-ltd-ors-v-a
点击访问原文链接

Independent News and Media Ltd & Ors v A - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Independent News and Media Ltd & Ors v A - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Independent News and Media Ltd & Ors v A Reference: [2009] EWHC 2858 (Fam)

Court: Family Division

Judge: Hedley J

Date of judgment: 12 Nov 2009 Summary: Reporting restrictions - Court of Protection - Article 10 - Freedom of expression - Article 8 - Respect for privacy

Download: Download this judgment

Instructing Solicitors: Romana Canneti for the Applicant; Irwin Mitchell for the Respondent

Facts The Applicants, various media bodies, applied to attend and report on a hearing in the Court of Protection concerning the Respondent, a gifted severely disabled person who was internationally well-known. Section 93 of the Court Protection Rules 2007 (‘the Rules’) prohibits publication of information about proceedings or hearings in public unless “there is good reason” for ordering to the contrary.

Issue Whether there was a good reason to open the hearing to the media and allow the publication of information about that hearing.

Held Granting the application:
The proceedings fell outside the open justice principles derived from Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417. Real value must be given to the concept of ‘good reason’ before the court should grant access to the media. Once ‘good reason’ is established the Article 8 and Article 10 balancing exercise must occur. Here ‘good reason’ was satisfied as (i) the Respondent was well known to the public and all issues of principles were already within the public domain; and (ii) the Court was equipped with the powers to preserve privacy whilst addressing the issues in the case. The Respondent’s Article 8 rights were clearly engaged; the matters litigated involve issues of family trust, private financial affairs and the way in which decisions are made how he spends time. In considering Article 10 it was possible to accommodate the legitimate concerns for privacy and the legitimate aspirations for publicity.

Comment A success for the media in winning the right to attend hearings not normally open to the public. The application was the first to challenge the Court of Protection’s accepted practice of private hearings.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* CommentsThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录