In the emotionally charged world of family litigation, personal boundaries can easily become collateral damage. But what happens when a party wants to shield their contact details from the other side? The recent decision in Galbraith-Marten v De Renée [2025] EWFC 96 gives us fresh insight into how courts strike a balance between transparency, fairness, and personal safety.
The Context: Why Contact Details Matter
In family proceedings, the default position under FPR 29.1 is that parties' contact details are available to one another. This rule supports procedural fairness, particularly where there are ongoing issues around enforcement or implementation of orders.
But what if one party feels that disclosure would lead to harassment, inappropriate contact, or even the weaponisation of their home address?
The Galbraith-Marten Decision
In this long-running litigation saga, Ms De Renée sought to compel the disclosure of her ex-husband's contact details. Her stated reason? So she could write to HMRC and others regarding his alleged historic non-disclosure in child support and maintenance cases.
The court found:
- There was no safeguarding risk that justified non-disclosure from a personal safety perspective.
- However, the real risk was litigation misuse: that the address would be used as a springboard for fresh accusations, further complaints, or vexatious litigation.
The judge ultimately declined to order disclosure, noting that doing so would merely provide "fertile territory for future allegations."
When Is It Appropriate to Withhold Contact Details?
The court can permit non-disclosure of contact information under rule 29.1 where there is:
- A genuine safeguarding concern (e.g. domestic abuse, stalking, coercive control).
- A history of litigation misuse, where disclosure might lead to further harassment or unfounded applications.
The decision in Galbraith-Marten suggests that even in the absence of personal safety risks, the court may still refuse disclosure where it serves no legitimate legal purpose and risks undermining court orders or feeding litigious conduct.
Practical Tips for Practitioners
- Make a C8 application early if your client wishes to keep their details private. Do not wait until disclosure becomes contentious.
- Clearly outline the risk—whether safeguarding, psychological, or procedural.
- If acting for the requesting party, demonstrate legitimate need, not simply curiosity or an attempt to reopen old disputes.
- Judges are alive to strategic misuse. Pattern behaviour matters: if one party repeatedly re-litigates resolved issues, privacy may trump disclosure.
The Bigger Picture
Privacy and confidentiality are not just about protection from harm—they are also about protecting the integrity of the process. The courts are increasingly willing to restrict the sharing of personal information not just to protect people, but to protect proceedings.
In an age where one letter to the wrong address can spark another year of litigation, withholding a postcode might be the most strategic decision a court makes.
