The decision to publish the “warts and all” judgment on the financial battle between Heather Mills and Sir Paul McCartney is a sign of the wish among family judges for more openness in their courts. But the flow of media leaks in the case, the high-profile nature of the couple and intense media interest were equally strong factors in the judge’s decision, lawyers said yesterday.

Ms Mills claimed she did not know that the judgment could be published and said that if she had, she might have settled the case. David Rosen, a lawyer who acted as her “McKenzie friend” in the proceedings – someone who helps litigants doing their own cases – told appeal judges yesterday that she had been in “deep shock” at the thought of the judgment being made public, perhaps because of the highly critical nature of the judge’s remarks about her. Lord Justice Thorpe said that while litigants in the family courts could expect to have a private hearing they could not assume that the judgment itself would not be made public. That had been done in a series of “big money” divorce cases and judges had also in recent years been urged to make public their judgments, even if in some cases they had to be made anonymous.

With Sir Paul and Ms Mills, anonymity was never a possibility. Alex Carruthers, of the London law firm Hughes Fowler Carruthers, said: “This decision to publish is pragmatic as much as it is driven by public policy reasons. Even if not disclosed the judgment would have been reported in the legal press, albeit with names removed.”

Hiding the parties’ identities would have been fruitless, said Mr Carruthers. He added: “The judge therefore took the practical decision that it was best to acknowledge the inevitable and preempt the future publication by making it public from the outset.”

Yet lawyers also agree that, pending a change in government policy on opening up the family courts, judges are taking their own limited steps at least to ensure that judgments of public interest are released.

There has been extensive consultation on whether to open up the family courts. But, after ministers initially indicated a move to more openness, there was a retreat in favour of less media access – but possibly more publication of decisions.

With this case, intense media interest and the high profile of the couple were also a significant factor in favour of publication.

Mr Carruthers added: “By making the judgment public the judge has ensured that the whole balanced view is available. He may well have thought that, given the number of leaks that have already occured in the case, either side might have selectively leaked parts of it to the press.”

Geraldine Morris, a solicitor and writer on family law, said that a judgment in a family case could be published if “thought by the judge to be of general importance”.

The judge might also have thought it would avoid further speculation and “bring some clarity to the financial order made by the court”.

Furthermore, she added, Ms Mills herself had given a number of significant details of the judgment outside court.

Ironically, Ms Mills’s use of the media throughout the divorce battle probably will have helped to ensure that the judgment was released.

Gus Sellitto, a legal public relations specialist with Byfield Consultancy, said: “The PR tactics in this case have clearly backfired, particularly from the Mills camp’s perspective.

“We have seen a war of words, media leaks and behind-the-scenes briefings that have made this a public interest case when it should have remained, as far as possible, a private matter.”

There was a clear link, he added, between levels of publicity achieved and the court’s decision to make the judgment public.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones