Exclusive to Cansford Labs: What's in a case name?

Lawyers, as everyone knows, refer to previously-decided cases, for example because the case sets a precedent, for subsequent cases to follow.

And cases are referred to by their names, usually decided upon by the judge when the case is published.

And obviously it is helpful if the case has a unique name, so that it is not confused with another case with a similar name.

In the realm of civil claims this is not usually a problem, as the names of the two parties are used, and that will usually give the case a unique identity.

But things are different with family law, primarily because the parties’ names are usually kept private. Thus we have a plethora of cases with names such as “A Mother v A Father”, “A v B”, and so on.

New trend

However, recently I have detected a new trend (as, I’m sure, have others). Some judges have decided to give their cases a memorable, and relevant, name. They have done so by using the fact that the parties’ names in family cases are anonymised. But instead of calling them “H” and “W”, they have been giving them two-letter names, which together spell a word.

I have been looking back at reported cases and have found possible instances of this phenomenon going back to March last year (it may go back further, but for the purpose of this post I did not think it necessary to search beyond that). Most of the cases are financial remedy judgments (The practice is perhaps not appropriate in children cases).

I say “possible” instances, as some may not be intended, as we will see.

Every dog has its day

One of the first cases that caught my eye was published last month. It concerned the final hearing of husband's financial remedies application. The primary asset was the former matrimonial home, but that was not the only thing that the parties argued over. They were also in dispute over who should retain the family dog.

I will not go into the details of the parties’ arguments regarding the dog (which, in the case of the husband, were quite ingenious, albeit not necessarily truthful), suffice to say that the judge decided that the wife should retain the dog. And what did the judge call the case? Well, he identified the husband by the initials “FI” and the wife by the initials “DO”. Thus the case was called “FI v DO”. I suspect the husband was as sick as a dog…

Moving swiftly on...

...after seeing this case I began to notice others, handed down by different judges.

There was, for example, the financial remedies case in which the husband was “a world leading figure and expert in a particular area of art”. The judge chose to identify the parties as “GO” and “YA”, thus the case name was “GO v YA”.

And how about the case involving a man’s application under the Married Women's Property Act 1882 for the return of various items of jewellery he asserted were stolen from him by his former fiancée, including an engagement ring? The judge chose to give him the initials “RI”, and the fiancée the initials “NG”, thus the case is known as “RI v NG”. Oh, and the fiancée was ordered to return the jewellery.

And then, back in July last year, there was a financial remedies case involving parties who were both French and who had entered into a French marriage contract. The judge chose to call them “BI” and “EN”, resulting in the case name “BI v EN”.

Hidden messages?

Having identified the above examples of this phenomenon, I am now seeing them everywhere. But are they all intended, or just coincidences?

I will let the reader decide.

There was, for example, the financial remedies case “TO v GA”, although I can’t detect in the judgment any reference to ancient Roman apparel. Or how about another financial remedies case “ST v AR”? Had one of the parties hitched their wagon to a star?

One twelfth of a foot (!)...

Other examples include a maintenance pending suit case “LI v FT” (was the wife seeking to lift her standard of living?), and another financial remedies case “IN v CH”, perhaps in which neither party was prepared to give one twelfth of a foot.

And finally there was an appeal by a husband against orders relating to the payment of costs orders made against the wife in financial remedy proceedings. The case was called “AB v BA”. Was this significant, or just a coincidence? Or perhaps the judge was a fan of Agnetha, Björn, Benny, and Anni-Frid?