AA v BB (Matrimonial Proceedings: Publication of Judgment) [2025] 4 HKLRD 526, [2025] HKFC 128 (Peter Barnes)
Peter Barnes acted for the petitioner in AA v BB (Matrimonial Proceedings: Publication of Judgment) [2025] 4 HKLRD 526, [2025] HKFC 128.
The Court handed down an ancillary relief judgment (the Judgment) in the matrimonial proceedings between the respondent wife (R) and the petitioner husband (P). Copies of the Judgment with initial redaction by the Court of the names of the parties and children and related entities were released to the parties upon handing down. R objected to the publication of the Judgment or, alternatively, applied for further redactions because it contained personal data of herself and the children and publication may reveal their identity and exposed them to misuse of personal data. R had concerns that the Judgment contained sensitive information and that public access to the Judgment may affect her privacy and ability to secure employment. She asked for further redaction of the contextual details to prevent re-establishment of identity with unique factors and combinations of information such as education and employment history that could lead to “Google” identification with publicly available data. P considered that the Judgment could be published as is and took a neutral stance on further redactions.
Held, refusing to withhold publication but allowing the application for further redaction of the Judgment, that:
(1) Open administration of justice was a fundamental principle of common law. Order 42 r.5B(4) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap.336H, Sub.Leg.) requires publication of judgments. Even in the context of matrimonial proceedings, parties’ right to family life, reputation and privacy did not dictate secrecy in such proceedings. The modern trend was to recognise the importance of open justice in family proceedings. In most cases where protection of parties’ rights was deemed necessary to curtail the open nature of proceedings, anonymity orders and restriction of highly sensitive information would be sufficient. Concerns regarding professional or personal embarrassment or an adverse impact on children, which were sometimes raised to withhold publication of Family Court judgments, could be allayed by appropriate anonymisation of the parties and related entities such as properties, companies or businesses involved (Asia Television Ltd v Communications Authority [2013] 2 HKLRD 354, TCWF v LKKS (CACV 154 and 166/2012, [2013] HKEC 1197) applied; FR v MF [2021] 3 HKLRD 294 considered). (See paras.11-16.)
(2) Judgments of the Family Court were not in a special category: the same general rules applied, namely, that judgments should be published, with appropriate safeguards to protect the identity of the parties and children. The Judgment was in “Concerned Proceedings” as governed by Practice Direction 15.15 and was subject to an initial redaction made by the Court to conceal the identities of the parties and the children in line with s.8 art.10 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). (See paras.7-8, 28, 31.)
(3) The Court must balance the interest of the parties and relevant public interest. R’s concerns were insufficient to withhold publication. No highly sensitive information remained. However, the Court allowed further redaction to allay the concerns raised by R and directed that the further redacted Judgment shall be released for publication in the usual manner. (See para.32.)
[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKLRD.]
