Damian Broadbent in High Court case clarifying the law and procedure where an accredited journalist does not attend a hearing but subsequently seeks disclosure and publication of documents from proceedings in the Family Court

Damian Broadbent, instructed by Lucy Rodgers and Chloe Abbott of Taylor Emmet Solicitors, appeared in Bradley v CM & Ors [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam). 

The case concerned an application by an accredited journalist, Jessica Bradley, for disclosure of psychological reports, Cafcass reports, and final orders and judgments in four sets of private law children proceedings heard on the North Eastern Circuit. 

The journalist also applied for permission to publish the content of the psychological reports and the final orders. 

The author of the psychological report in each case was Dr Maria Downs. The journalist attended part of the final hearing in SE20P00892, the case Damian was instructed on, however the journalist did not attend any hearings in the other three proceedings.  

Accordingly, the journalist’s application compromised of two limbs, firstly an application under FPR r29.12 to see documents on the court file, and secondly, an application under the inherent jurisdiction for permission to publish and communicate the contents of the psychological reports, final orders, and unpublished judgments. 

The application was heard by The Honourable Mr Justice Poole, then Presiding Judge of the North Eastern Circuit. 

Poole J undertakes a comprehensive review of the legal framework at [35] – [57] of the judgment, before summarising the present position at [58] as:

1. A reporter who attends a hearing in the Family Court held in private may request and, if the court decides to make a Transparency Order following the template, will be provided with copies of the index to the bundle, case outlines, summaries, position statements (including skeleton arguments), threshold documents, chronologies, and “copies of anonymised orders within the case”. 
2. Access to any other documents on the court file may be granted by the court to a non-party, including a reporter who has or has not attended a hearing in the proceedings, on application in accordance with FPR r29.12 (Newman (above)). According to Newman, this is an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The starting point will be the open justice principle in which context the court will conduct a balancing exercise involving consideration of the specific rights claimed and the welfare of the child involved. The welfare of the child is a primary, but not the paramount, consideration unless the application itself concerns the upbringing of the child in which case it will be the paramount consideration.
3. The grant to a journalist or legal blogger of access to documents on the court file in a family case heard in private does not, without more, give them permission to publish the contents of those documents nor to communicate or publish any information relating to the proceedings.
4. AJA 1960 s12 operates to prohibit a journalist, a legal blogger, or anyone else, publishing information relating to family proceedings heard in private. This prohibition continues even after the conclusion of the case and whatever the ages of the children involved.
5. CA 1989 s97 prohibits the publication of material intended, or likely to, identify any child as being involved in any family proceedings, or the address or school of the child, but that prohibition ends with the conclusion of the proceedings.
6. When a journalist or legal blogger (a “reporter”) attends a family hearing in private, a Transparency Order may be made. A Transparency Order will allow a reporter who attends a hearing to quote from the documents provided to them in accordance with the order and PD12R. Hence, it varies the effect of AJA 1960 s12 to that limited extent. The court may also vary CA 1989 s97 by making a Transparency Order but the template Transparency Order prohibits the publication of information relating to the proceedings which includes “for the purposes of s.97(2) Children Act 1989″, any information likely to identify the child as a subject child or former subject child”. The template Transparency Order also provides that it remains in effect until the youngest child “in the proceedings” reaches their 18th birthday. 
7. Accordingly, in many cases, the template Transparency Order extends the prohibitions imposed by CA 1989 s97 beyond the conclusion of proceedings to the youngest child’s 18th birthday.
8. The effect of AJA 1960 s12, albeit varied by a Transparency Order until the youngest child is 18, continues beyond the conclusion of proceedings, beyond the youngest child’s 18th birthday and in perpetuity.
9. A variation of CA 1989 s97 under s97(4) may be directed where the welfare of the child requires it. The test for a variation of the effect of AJA 1960 s12 is, from the starting point of the open justice principle, a balancing exercise involving an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the case and, as a primary consideration, the welfare of the child or children involved.  Their welfare is a primary but not the paramount consideration unless the application is properly viewed as concerning the upbringing of the child in which case the welfare of the child will be the paramount consideration.
10. Any variation of AJA 1960 s12 beyond the terms set out in FPR PD12R can only be made by the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. Given the importance of the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction in relation to both (i) an application for access to documents on the court file (beyond those provided to reporters attending hearings as set out in a Transparency Order in accordance with FPR PD12R) and (ii) permission to publish from those documents or to publish information relating to the private proceedings, it is problematic that the powers of judges in the Family Court not sitting as High Court Judges, is not very clear – see Harris J in M v F (above) . That is not an issue that I have to address because I am a High Court Judge and I transferred these applications to the High Court.

Poole J then considers the competing Article 10 and Article 8 rights in each of the four cases, together with consideration of the subject child’s welfare as a primary (but not paramount) consideration. Weighing all those factors in the balance, Poole J directs that all final orders, psychological reports and Cafcass reports should be disclosed to the journalist, with limitations on what the journalist can publish. 

This judgment sets out the rules and principles to be applied in applications by journalists for access to information in cases where they did not attend any hearings. In the concluding paragraphs of the judgment Poole J comments on the complexity of considering such an application and the need for guidance or a streamlined procedure in the future. This is likely to be a judgment of significant interest to the Family Procedure Rule Committee and marks a further step forward in the move towards transparency and open justice in the Family Courts. 

Damian represented the respondent Mother throughout this application and in the earlier proceedings (see Re C (A Child) [2025] EWFC 47 (B)). 

Also reported in The Law Society Gazette.

Related areas

• Public Interest Immunity
• Private Law Children