Times Media Ltd v Rayner, in which The Times applied for access to a consent order relating to Angela Rayner’s 2023 divorce, reveals the complex rules around confidentiality in the family courts, particularly as the judiciary pushes for more transparency and more media access to documentation. Andrew Fremlin-Key, partner in the Withers Media and Reputation team, Oliver Guest, senior associate in the Family Team, and senior knowledge lawyer Jemma Thomas explain where media strategies can help, and why they’re not just for celebrities.
Over the last few years there has been an increased focus on open justice in the family courts – the well-known mantra being that justice not just needs to be done but needs to be seen to be done. The underlying principle is that the work of the family court should be open to scrutiny and better understood by the public.
Often, one of the drivers towards reaching an agreement outside of court is that the parties can protect their privacy and confidential arrangements. This is of particular importance where one party is well known or a public figure. For example, earlier this year the family court published a judgment involving the vice chancellor of the University of Buckingham without protecting his anonymity – although there were restrictions on what should be published. The decision to litigate can leave you open to various details being reported.
A public record
Family lawyers have grown accustomed to the increasing likelihood of parties being named in proceedings and know that the press will have access to certain court documents so as to better understand the case on which they are reporting. There are various ways of managing these risks including redactions, confidential schedules and proactive engagement with the press. This is where a media lawyer can really add value.
However, the recently reported decision of Times Media Ltd v Rayner [2025] EWHC 2878 was striking because the information that the Times Media wanted to access included an order made by consent on Angela Rayner’s divorce in June 2023. There were no litigated proceedings.
No hearing, no reporters
Divorcing couples have financial claims against each other as a result of their marriage, and those claims can only be finally determined, and agreements can only be enforced, when the court makes an order. Therefore, even in circumstances where everything is agreed it is almost always the case that an application will be made to the court for a final order.
So, regardless of your celebrity status, the standard advice is that your financial claims on divorce should be embodied in a court order. Ordinarily that application is straightforward – the agreement, together with confirmation both of your financial position now and when the order is implemented, is sent to the court for a judge for approval. There are no reporters involved as there is no hearing.
In the public interest
In Angela Rayner’s case, however, more than two years later, Times Media Ltd sought permission to inspect that order. Of course, there was a good reason for their interest – another party to her divorce (as well as her former husband) was the Trust which had been established to look after the money received from a clinical negligence claim made on behalf of their son. It was the extent to which the Trust had an interest in their family home and, what famously followed afterwards, that sparked public interest.
Whilst the circumstances are unusual, and in fact all parties agreed that the Times Media Ltd could see the order, the case serves as a reminder that even when financial remedy cases are determined by agreement there are still circumstances in which aspects of them can become public. Therefore, a media strategy (ideally agreed with the other side as part of a settlement) can be essential even if it’s simply to not speak to the press.
Protecting future privacy
In this case it was not just the Times looking for the court’s permission in relation to the financial proceedings. Angela Rayner also had to apply to the court for permission to speak about the case because she was bound by undertakings that she would not do so. It is not unusual in a high profile divorce for both people to undertake not to speak about the details of their separation. When that happens, if circumstances change and they need to be released from those undertakings, they must return to court.
Rules in relation to confidentiality and transparency are complex, long lasting and consequential. When acting for high profile clients, our Family and Reputation Management teams work closely together to ensure we can provide the best possible outcomes for clients who are looking to secure the right outcome whilst protecting their privacy.
About the authors
Andrew Fremlin-Key is a partner in the Media and Reputation team at Withers LLP. He advises clients in relation to contentious data protection, defamation, privacy, blackmail, breach of confidence, data breaches, harassment issues, reputational investigations and crisis management ranging from court litigation to non-disclosure agreements. His recent clients include models, fashion designers, charities, photographers, editors, artists, politicians, members of royal families, crypto miners and chief executives.
Oliver Guest is a senior associate in the Withers LLP Family law team. He advises on all aspects of family law, including divorce, cohabitation, pre and postnuptial agreements, children issues and complex financial disputes. He focuses on keenly protecting clients’ interests through achieving pragmatic and commercially sensitive solutions.
Jemma Thomas is a senior knowledge lawyer, accredited mediator and child inclusive mediator in Withers’ divorce and family team. Jemma has specialised in family law since qualification in 2002, and has worked on a wide variety of cases including international matrimonial finance, private law children work, cohabitation cases and pre-nuptial agreements.
