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
Spotlight on transparency: PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v A Local Health Board
Frederick Powell, Doughty Street ChambersMarisa Cohen, Doughty Street ChambersIn the case of PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969...
Nilsson v Cynberg and subsequent agreements: changing common intentions
Chris Bryden, Barrister, 4 King’s Bench WalkDaniel Wand, Barrister, 4 King’s Bench WalkThe issue as to how the beneficial ownership of land is determined is one which has frequently troubled the...
Finance special: how the 2024 budget is impacting family law
Sarah Higgins, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPSarah Jane Boon, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPMiranda Fisher, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPCharlotte Posnansky, Charles Russell Speechlys LLPThe Budget of...
The deprivation of liberty of children: what can we do better?
Pippa Pudney, Barrister, Spire BarristersThis article explores the principles of care for children deprived of their liberty including the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory’s recent recommendations...
Designation of Care and Supervision Orders: key themes and practical advice
Shiva Ancliffe KC, Coram ChambersCaroline Croft, Coram ChambersIn this article Shiva Ancliffe KC and Caroline Croft set out the law in relation to the designation of care and supervision orders,...
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