Try asking the following...
Judgment
Lord Justice McFarlane:
This appeal relates to a reporting restrictions order made on 20 July 2016 by Mr Justice Moor sitting in the High Court Family Division at the conclusion of matrimonial proceedings. A married couple were divorced in Russia in 2013 but, after the English court gave her permission to, the wife claimed financial provision from the husband in England under the jurisdiction provided by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 , Part III.
At an earlier stage the husband challenged the jurisdiction of the English court to make an interim maintenance order whilst he was subject to EU sanctions. His appeal was dismissed. The judgment in the appeal proceedings was published in an anonymised form pursuant to a reporting restrictions order made by this court (the ‘Court of Appeal order’).
At the final hearing of the Part III application and an application for financial provision under the Children Act 1989 (‘CA 1989’) in July 2016, the husband’s application to extend the reporting restrictions order was dismissed. That dismissal is recorded in paragraph 14 of the order of that date (‘the order’).
By paragraph 19 of the order the judge below also discharged the reporting restriction order made by the Court of Appeal with effect from a date 21 days hence, unless either party applied to the Court of Appeal to continue that order and/or either party made an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against his refusal to make a fresh reporting restriction order (as recorded in paragraph 14 of the order – see paragraph 3 above).
Finally, by paragraph 22 of the order, the husband was granted permission to appeal the decision (recorded in paragraph 19 of the order) to discharge the Court of Appeal’s reporting restriction order. In addition to hearing that appeal on 25 th July 2017, this court also considered the husband’s application for permission to appeal:
paragraph 12(b) of the order below which permitted reporting of the fact that the husband had made an application for a reporting restrictions order relating to certain specified information (‘the first specified information’); and
paragraph 14 of the order which dismissed the husband’s application for a order to restrain publication of other specified information (‘the second specified information’).
Although Times Newspapers Limited were given permission to appeal two aspects of the order (relating to paragraphs 11(A) and 11(b)) that appeal has not been pursued.
Publ