All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
(Court of Appeal; Wall LJ; 25 July 2006)
On reviewing an injunction against a father restraining publication of the child's name, address or any particulars which might lead to identification of the child, following an earlier judgment which had itself named the child and the parties, the court was prepared to discharge the injunction but refused to set the injunction aside. The earlier judgment had changed the practice of the court so that anonymity was no longer automatic in children's cases, but there had been no injustice at the time in the injunction having been made without first hearing the father as to the merits, and the wording had been in the common form at the time.
"the principal (monthly) periodical dealing with contemporary issues" Sir Mark Potter P