Louise Tickle v Father & Ors [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam) 

Dr Charlotte Proudman represented the mother in a successful appeal brought by journalist, Louise Tickle. Dr Proudman was instructed pro bono by Melanie Bridgen of Nelsons Law.

The private law proceedings concerned allegations of domestic abuse and parental alienation.

Ms Tickle sought permission to report matters discussed in the hearing. The judge adjourned Ms Tickle’s application to report. The issue in this case is whether the Judge erred in law in his application of the balance between Ms Tickle’s rights to report under Article 10 European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) and the child and family’s right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR. Ms Tickle is a journalist who specialises in reporting from the Family Court.

Mrs Justice Lieven added:

36. Dr Proudman supported the appeal. In her Skeleton Argument she raised concerns about what had occurred on the first day of the hearing but, as I have explained above, that did not form part of the issues before me in the appeal. In her oral submissions she pointed to the fact that the Mother had not had the benefit of any participation directions, and this was an issue which there was a real public interest in being widely known and aired. 

Two further important issues from the judgment:

46. Fourthly, it will rarely, but not never, be appropriate for the Court to inquire as to why the journalist is seeking to report, or how s/he became aware of the hearing. In general, as Mr Barnes submits, this will be a matter for the journalist who would not be expected to reveal a “source”. However, if the Judge becomes concerned that one party is seeking to use reporting as a litigation strategy, particularly in the context of issues around coercive control, the Judge may wish to inquire into the background to the application to report. This can only be considered on a case specific basis. 

51. Eighthly, there may well be cases where it is appropriate to adjourn a decision about whether a case can be reported on until the final hearing. However, whether that is justified must be considered on the facts of the individual case. Adjourning the decision is itself an interference with the reporter’s Article 10 rights, and as such is different from a more normal case management decision. The Court must bear in mind that the resources of media outlets and reporters are finite, and a reporter may not be able to return on a future occasion.

Read more here.

---

Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman

---

Related practice areas: Family

---