View source for Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2010) EWCA Civ 343

''The judge's decision (that designated representatives of the media could attend the hearing in the Court of Protection and thereafter apply to the judge for authorisation to publish information disclosed in the proceedings) was upheld, but his approach (that article 10 was not engaged when the media's application was made but rather when the court decided that there was "good reason" under Rule 93(1)(a)) was not.''

==Related judgments==
*[[Re P (2010) EWHC 1592 (Fam)]]
*[[Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2010) EWCA Civ 343]]
:*[[Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2009) EWHC 2858 (Fam)]] - see this page for further details

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2010) EWCA Civ 343}}

==Official summary==
{{COP2010|5}}

==Citations==
[2010] 2 FLR 1290, [2010] WLR (D) 94

==External link==
{{#bailii: [2010] EWCA Civ 343}}

[http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2010/CACiv/IndependentNews_v_A.htm Case report on ICLR website]

[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-a-welcome-victory-for-liberty-1972832.html The Independent: Leading article: A welcome victory for liberty] - 14/5/10

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Detailed summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]