High Court orders family court findings to be disclosed to the First-tier Tribunal and Home Office
Family court disclosure has been ordered by the High Court after a judge found that findings from private family proceedings were capable of being relevant to an ongoing asylum appeal.
In F v M (Disclosure to the First Tier Tribunal), Ms Debra Powell KC directed that a fact-finding judgment, its schedule of findings and the latest judgment be provided to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration.
The judgment was handed down on 14 August 2026 following a hearing on 22 July 2026. The case concerned an eight-year-old boy, identified as D, whose mother brought him to the UK from a Caribbean country in March 2024 without his father’s knowledge or consent.
The mother and D were appealing against the refusal of their asylum applications. The asylum appeal included allegations that substantially overlapped with allegations considered during family proceedings concerning the father’s contact with D.
In January 2026, the High Court held a five-day fact-finding hearing. In a judgment handed down on 9 February, the court found that the mother had not proved her allegations against the father. The judge found that the father was not a member of the alleged “Lodge” or “Illuminati” and that there had been no sexual incident involving D while he was in his father’s care.
The father subsequently applied for the fact-finding judgment to be disclosed to the First-tier Tribunal and the Home Office. D’s guardian supported the application.
The issue before the court was whether disclosure was permitted under rule 12.73(1)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The judge applied the balancing exercise identified by the Court of Appeal in Re C (A Minor)(Care Proceedings Disclosure), finding that there is no presumption either for or against disclosure. The central question was whether disclosure was necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.
The court considered D’s welfare, confidentiality in family proceedings, the public interest in the administration of justice and the desirability of cooperation between public bodies, among other factors.
The judge found that the family court’s findings were plainly capable of being relevant to the asylum claims because of the significant overlap between the allegations advanced in the two sets of proceedings.
Particular weight was placed on a letter sent by the mother’s solicitors to the First-tier Tribunal. The letter referred to the ongoing family proceedings but did not mention the fact-finding hearing or judgment. The judge said its effect was to leave the Tribunal with an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the family proceedings, while making no finding about the intention behind the letter.
The judgment stressed that the First-tier Tribunal remains responsible for applying its own legal framework and standard of proof. Disclosure would not determine the outcome of the asylum appeal; the Tribunal would decide what weight, if any, should be given to the family court’s findings.
For solicitors, the key point is that confidentiality attaching to private family proceedings does not prevent disclosure where material findings may be relevant to another court or tribunal. The court emphasised the importance of cooperation across different parts of the justice system and held that relevant findings should not be artificially withheld where doing so could leave another decision-maker with materially incomplete information.
Ms Powell KC concluded that the balance of the Re C factors favoured disclosure and that disclosure was both necessary and proportionate.
The father’s solicitors were therefore directed to provide the fact-finding judgment, schedule of findings and the judgment in the present case to the First-tier Tribunal, the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration.