- Decision to lift reporting restrictions upheld ahead of final welfare hearings (Al Maktoum v Al Hussein)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Permission to amend—paramountcy of the welfare of the children
- Case details
Information Law analysis: In this judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision to permit the reporting and publication of both a fact-finding judgment and a judgment concerning assurances and waivers prior to a welfare hearing taking place in wardship proceedings (in which the father sought the return of his children to Dubai). The decision to lift reporting restrictions was not premature as the findings were final and they were not likely to be undermined at the welfare hearing as they did not relate to the children’s welfare. It was also necessary to meet the private and family life needs of the mother and children and to correct a false narrative about them. Accordingly, the father’s appeal against the publication order and subsequent publication of the publication judgment was dismissed. The judgment reinforces the relevant principles which govern appeals relating to reporting restrictions. Written by Lily Walker-Parr, barrister, at 5RB.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial