On 29 January 2024, for all court hearings dealing with the division of assets on divorce, the names of the individuals involved will be published in court lists along with an indication that the case deals with money matters on divorce.

On the same day, a Pilot Scheme will be launched in London, Birmingham and Leeds which will give reporters the tools to understand better what is happening in financial cases on divorce. It will be extended in November to the Royal Courts of Justice and the “big money” cases heard there.

The intention is to ensure that reporters – authorised media and legal bloggers – are better informed and able to report more accurately on the inner workings of the family courts in England and Wales.

Reporters will have access to a written case summary setting out the key facts and issues at stake, along with the written submissions made to the court by each of the parties. More judgments in financial cases on divorce should also be published.

But crucially this will not be at the expense of privacy. Parties cannot be named and in the vast majority of cases reporting will remain subject to strict anonymity.

There has been heated debate, with judges taking opposing views, about whether the courts and by extension journalists should be able to name divorcing parties who find themselves arguing in court about the split of their assets and other financial claims. This Pilot reinforces and upholds the right to privacy.

In effect it goes against the decisions of Mr Justice Holman and Mr Justice Mostyn, both now retired, whose preference was to hear all financial cases in open court and to publish judgments naming those involved.

The Pilot adopts the conclusions of a committee chaired by His Honour Judge Farquhar, of which I was a member and which included solicitors, barristers, members of the judiciary and representatives of the media. It formed part of the President of the Family Division’s wider transparency review. The committee had input from within and beyond the family law world and we looked at the approach taken in a number of other jurisdictions, as well as here. In broad terms, our recommendations follow the approach taken in Australia.

Under this scheme, the names or addresses of the parties and their children cannot be published, details of the schools attended by the children and the employers or places of business of the parties must remain private, and the identity of any accounts, investments, companies or partnerships in which the parties have an interest cannot be reported.

But the tools now available to reporters should give an insight into the workings of the family courts and act as a boost to serious investigative journalism. It may also shine a light on inconsistent approaches taken by different Judges on asset division and spousal maintenance payments.

This careful balance of transparency and privacy, and overall greater clarity on what can and can’t be reported, will hopefully be good news for all concerned.

Caroline’s article was published in The Times, here.