Your divorce proceedings could be reported in the press. Here's what that actually means for you

In January 2025, the default position in English family courts shifted. The press can now report on financial remedy proceedings, unless a judge specifically orders otherwise. For high-profile individuals and families, this is a live risk.

AFP Bloom set out what changed, what it means in practice, and how to think about protecting what matters.

The moment the rules changed

For many years, family court proceedings in England and Wales operated under the assumption that what happened inside courtrooms usually stayed there. Accredited journalists and legal bloggers could attend financial remedy hearings, but the default position was that they could not report anything they heard.

That changed in January 2025, when what began as a Reporting Pilot became a permanent feature across all family courts. The default position is now the reverse. Media can report on proceedings unless there is a specific reason not to. The so-called 'transparency principle' has arrived. And for anyone facing a high-value, high-profile, or simply intensely personal financial dispute, the implications deserve serious thought.

This is not scaremongering, as most cases will attract no media attention whatsoever. But for those where they might (where the parties are known, where the finances are complex, where business interests or reputation are at stake) the landscape has shifted.

AFP Bloom have been at the front line of these changes, developing the law with cases reported across the family division and Court of Appeal. They have also worked successfully in avoiding any reporting at all for many high profile clients in which the media have tried to gain access to extremely sensitive and private information and been refused.

What a Transparency Order actually covers

When a journalist or legal blogger attends a hearing, the court will now make a Transparency Order; a document that sets out, specifically, what can and cannot be reported. The 'standard' order permits access to some court documents including the parties’ position statements and a bundle index. Those documents can also be passed to media colleagues who were not present at the hearing.

The existence of this framework is, in one sense, reassuring, as it is not a free-for-all. The court retains discretion. Judges can exclude reporters from a specific hearing, restrict or delay reporting, or — in appropriate cases — direct that there should be no reporting at all. This requires recorded reasons, but it can and does happen.

This is where expert legal input becomes absolutely essential.

When careful consideration is required, and why it matters for you

The Reporting Pilot Guidance identifies certain categories of cases where the court must give 'careful consideration' before allowing widespread reporting. Two are particularly relevant for the individuals and families AFP Bloom typically works with.

The first is where matters relevant to the proceedings are also subject to criminal investigation or active regulatory scrutiny, including, for instance, investigations by the Home Office. In those situations, reporting openly on the family proceedings could have significant collateral consequences for reputation or business relationships. It might also impact ongoing investigations entirely separate from the divorce itself. It could undermine confidence in commercial or financial trades. That intersection demands joined-up legal thinking.

The second is the risk of what the guidance calls 'jigsaw identification'. Even where parties and children are not named in any report, identifying details (the location, the profession, the nature of the dispute, information that is already in the public domain) can combine to make identification straightforward for those who know the family. In high-profile cases and those which have already been subject of media reporting this is a real risk.  

“Anonymity is not simply a matter of removing names. In complex, high-profile cases, the details themselves can tell the story”. 

The strongest protection is often the one that avoids the courtroom

For many clients, particularly those for whom privacy is genuinely important, the most reliable protection against the transparency regime is avoiding it altogether.

Private dispute resolution (whether through private early evaluation, mediation, arbitration, or solicitor-led negotiation) takes place either entirely outside the court system or in parallel to it. No Transparency Orders and no journalists with the right to attend. 

This is not the path for everyone. There are cases where court proceedings are necessary, where one party will not engage meaningfully without the structure of litigation, where enforcement is needed, or where the nature of the dispute demands judicial determination. AFP Bloom will always tell clients honestly whether their case is one of those.

But for those who have a genuine choice (and more people have that choice than often realise) it is worth understanding that private resolution is not a compromise or a second-best option. Handled properly, it is strategically sharper, faster, less costly, and now significantly more private.

The question to ask early, ideally before positions have hardened, is simply: does this need to go to court? The honest answer, in many cases, is no.

Private resolution is not a compromise. For the right case, it is the most intelligent strategy available.

What good advice looks like in practice

The transparency regime exists for legitimate reasons; accountability, public confidence in the justice system, an end to what some critics called 'secret justice,' and it operates with meaningful judicial oversight.

However the rules have changed, the consequences are real for some clients, and the best time to think about this is before proceedings are underway. Once litigation begins, options narrow. The strategic decisions made at the outset, about process, about what is put in writing, about whether to litigate or resolve privately, shape everything that follows.

At AFP Bloom, our approach is to put these questions on the table early and honestly. We work closely with barristers to ensure that clients facing complex financial disputes have a complete picture. Not just of the legal arguments available to them, but of the broader landscape in which their case will be heard. That includes, where relevant, a frank conversation about the transparency regime and what it means for them specifically.

Excellent legal advice, in our view, is never just about the law. It is about the full context in which that law operates. And ensuring that clients can make genuinely informed decisions, with confidence, at every stage.

If you would like to speak to AFP Bloom about your family law matter, in confidence, please contact us. All initial conversations are handled with discretion and without obligation.