Crikey

The Sydney Morning Herald’s CBD column sails close to the wind today with an article on proceedings in the Family Court: ”… the case of a $1 billion - yes, billion - marriage bust-up, in which the interim settlement alone has awarded the wife a $10 million payout.”

We’d prefer not to repeat any more of the column item here (on legal advice), other than to say that between the luscious detail provided in The SMH and the current BRW Rich List we can only come up with one candidate for the not-very anonymous husband litigant who isn’t James Packer. Who we assume it isn’t, James being a happy, cult-blessed newlywed and all.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court agreed that the information supplied in the item ”does narrow down the field and could lead to an identification of the person. A name could pop out.” This is of course illegal under the Family Court Act:

s121 Restriction on publication of court proceedings

(1) A person who publishes in a newspaper or periodical publication, by radio broadcast or television or by other electronic means, or otherwise disseminates to the public or to a section of the public by any means, any account of any proceedings, or of any part of any proceedings, under this Act that identifies:

(a) a party to the proceedings;

(b) a person who is related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings or is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate; or

(c) a witness in the proceedings;

is guilty of an offence punishable, upon conviction by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.

Any prosecution here would be a matter for the Federal Attorney General. Over to you Mr Ruddock.

”I’ve spoken to our editorial lawyers,” said the item’s author, Michael Evans, ”and am told we have had no contact from the Attorney General’s office. Our lawyer asked me to note to you that “nor should we”.”

Which is nothing if not confident.