Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025 shortlist announced
The shortlist for the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025 has been announced.The LexisNexis Legal Awards will be held at the Park Plaza Riverbank on 13 March 2025. You can book your table here.The shortlist...
Costs in Financial Remedy Proceedings: an overview
Jack Harris, St John’s ChambersVivien Croly, St John’s ChambersUntil relatively recently, practitioners dealing with financial remedy work were rarely troubled by the issue of costs at the conclusion...
Revoking a will by marriage or civil partnership: an argument for abolition
Andrew Bainham, Emeritus Reader in Family Law and Policy, University of Cambridge A will is revoked by the testator’s marriage or civil partnership. The Law Commission has consulted twice on...
Non-existent children – a judicial dilemma
Mary Welstead, Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn July 2024, after three years of hearings and adjournments, Mrs Justice Arbuthnot handed down her judgment in AA v...
Disability as a section 25 factor
Naomh Gallagher, St John’s BuildingsDespite disability being a Section 25 factor in its own right, there is a dearth of resources specifically addressing the same. Often rolled into earning capacity,...
View all articles
Authors

J is for Jurisdiction: Re J

Sep 29, 2018, 18:55 PM
Title : J is for Jurisdiction: Re J
Slug : j-is-for-jurisdiction-re-j
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Dec 11, 2013, 09:35 AM
Article ID : 104299

Alistair MacDonald QC and Julie Moseley, St Philips Chambers, Birmingham:

The Art 10 right of parents to express opinions online via social media, and the right of the press to publish those opinions more widely will continue to be guarded jealously by the courts.

In Re J (Reporting Restriction: Internet: Video) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam), [2014] 1 FLR (forthcoming and noted at [2013] Fam Law 1389) the President of the Family Division makes clear however that, even in the ever advancing age of social media, where the exercise of freedom of expression becomes a disproportionate interference in a child's rights under Art 8, reporting restriction orders remain available to protect the child's right to privacy and anonymity.

The case of Re J makes clear that the fact that the medium employed to disseminate opinions and information is a foreign based internet website does not prevent the use of such orders and sets out the procedural requirements for obtaining injunctions against foreign based internet providers.

In J is for jurisdiction Alistair MacDonald QC and Julie Moseley (leading and junior counsel for the local authority in Re J) explain the decision in Re J and the procedural requirements that flow from it.

The full version of this article appears in the December 2013 issue of Family Law.   

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from