According to a report in The Times newspaper, District Judge Hilary Bradley ruled that the names, occupations and financial affairs of the couple are to remain confidential to protect the husband’s father from embarrassment, damage to his career and possible loss of life.
Although it is usual for the financial status of splitting couples to be kept secret, The Times had argued there was ‘serious public interest’ in this case and that therefore publication of details should be allowed. Of particular interest were the ‘cosy financial arrangements’ concerning an unconnected individual.

Conflict of rights

Judge Bradley said there is ‘a direct conflict between the right of the media to freedom of expression and the right of those involved in the matrimonial proceedings to respect for their private lives’, and concluded that in this case the ‘balance’ between these rights ‘falls firmly  in favour of privacy being maintained’.
The newspaper also reported that the judge also accepted the uncertainty regarding rules on reporting similar matters, but observed that past cases had suggested that evidence given under compulsion should remain confidential.
The couple was scheduled to attend a five-day hearing in January, but settled out of court.