The Transparency Pilot Scheme: A route to Justice or a Concern for Clients?

The Transparency Pilot scheme has been in place in all financial remedy proceedings across the country since the end of January 2025 and will run for a year.

Proponents of the scheme are seeking to improve the lack of public access to, and awareness of, what takes place in the Family Law Courts and how judges come to decisions relating to children and families. There is a concern, following decisions in high profile public law cases, that decisions are being made behind closed doors without a full understanding of the process and therefore a lack of scrutiny on those making life-changing decisions.

The scheme allows qualifying legal reporters and press greater access to the Family Courts – to attend hearings, speak to parties and their lawyers, review key documents, including position statements and pleadings.

Collaboration is Key

All parties are required to assist the court in furthering the Overriding Objective at FPR 1.3. Where a reporter seeks to attend a hearing, advocates are expected to be prepared to address the court on transparency issues from the outset during pre-hearing discussions with their clients and the other lawyers involved. In addition, lawyers and lay clients must engage with the proposed reporter in order to progress matters and seek to reduce the issues. Reports from those involved in the scheme indicate that there has been positive collaboration between press, parties and practitioners.

Safeguards & structure

Those who have worked carefully on the scheme roll-out have sought to provide as much clarity for all involved, issuing detailed guidance as to what should happen when a journalist wishes to attend and report on a hearing. The Transparency Project have published a helpful summary for Court users who might be affected by the scheme, including the following key points:

1. Reporters intending to attend a hearing should give notice to the parties ahead of the hearing.
2. Consideration at the outset should be given to the documentation which will aid the reporter’s understanding of the case, with appropriate anonymisation.
3. A precedent Transparency Order has been produced for the parties and judges to use.
4. There are clear parameters as to information that can and cannot be reported. Such information includes the full names of the parties and any children; the names of the schools the children attend; and the names of private companies that may have an interest.

It is important to note that to some extent the pilot is not as huge a change as one might think and therefore the Court should be alive to the issues involved. Reporters can already attend financial remedy hearings (but not FDRs) as of right. The challenging part will be what reporters are able to report, arising from what they have heard and read at the hearings they attend.

Client concerns

All solicitors will be aware of their confidentiality duties and to act in clients’ best interests. The potential for the press to review documentation and sit in on proceedings, therefore, can feel instinctively uncomfortable. This is particularly the case for family practitioners, who are well-used to advising individuals during vulnerable periods of their lives.

While there is something of a brash representation of divorcées seeking their “day in Court” by film and media, the reality is that building up the confidence to do so might have taken several months. It is not uncommon for those exiting a marriage to have suffered some form of domestic abuse and the process to gaining their trust and confidence is a delicate and sensitive balance.

While the press should give notice of proposed attendance, they are not required to do so. The sudden appearance of a third party could be extremely destabilising for an individual. In addition, the idea of having highly personal information could inhibit and censor their evidence – with a potentially far-reaching impact on the case outcome.

The press are not required to inform the parties of their source and there is also a danger press attendance could be manipulated by one party over another – using the threat of issuing proceedings and a public court hearing as leverage.

Time & Costs

The Courts’ limited time and resources are well known, with judges and staff already working under extreme pressure. Press attendance will automatically trigger the need to address the Transparency Order at the outset of proceedings. The time needed to hear the position of each side as to the reporting restrictions that should be applied (or not) may take a considerable amount of time – potentially derailing the timetabling of proceedings, which the parties may have been waiting for, for many months. Furthermore, it is currently unclear who will be compelled to meet the costs of dealing with these issues.

Looking forward

It is within human nature to be wary of change but one must remember that the motivations behind the scheme are wholly positive. It can only be a benefit to society for there to be high quality and reliable reporting in relation to the family law system.  Those who are compelled to rely on the Court for assistance must be prioritised to ensure their legitimate expectation to preserve their privacy and access to justice is maintained. This is, after all, a pilot; a means to test and improve the existing framework to see what works and what might require further thought.

This article first appeared in the New Law Journal in March 2025