IU v OS [2020] EWFC 98
This case concerned an application for a financial remedy brought by IU, a wife (‘W’), against OS, her husband (‘H’).
___
Cohen J's judgment is long (48 pages, 288 paragraphs). This is unsurprising in circumstances where the litigation lasted over 3 years, where the court heard from 12 witnesses (including H and W), where hand-writing experts where asked to assess various documents produced by H (and his team) which themselves required translation and where orders had to be obtained on behalf of W for documentation to be produced by H's solicitors (producing previously withheld and relevant evidence). W's costs (including interest) were c. £2.5-£2.6m.
By Masood Ahmed14 December 2020
Masood Ahmed
In the case of XXX v Camden London Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1468, the Court of Appeal provided important guidance on the approach the courts should take when determining applications to anonymise details of parties and witnesses under CPR 39.2 (4). The appellant appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments.
Open Justice and CPR 39.2
CPR 39.2 reflects the principle of open justice which states that hearings must be held in public. CPR 39.2(4) provides that ‘the court must order that the identity of any party or witness shall not be disclosed if, and only if, it considers non-disclosure necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of that party or witness’. What approach should the courts take when applying CPR 39.2(4)?