Earl Spencer and his former wife, Caroline, were united yesterday in an attempt to oust the media from their battle for a divorce settlement at the High Court.

In the first high-profile test of reforms that allowed reporters into family courts, including divorce hearings, Lord Spencer and his former wife wanted a blanket ban on any publicity.

But the High Court judge hearing the case, Mr Justice Munby, rejected their request and instead asked the parties to put forward a request for restrictions on the coverage of the hearing, expected to last all week.

Nicholas Mostyn, QC, representing Lord Spencer, brother of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, said that the reason why the media were allowed in to the once-private Family Division hearings was because of lobbying to open up “secret proceedings” involving battles over children.

He said it was not the object of the reforms to allow the press to report anything of news interest, particularly battles over how assets are split after a divorce. “These parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Thousands of family court hearings that previously would have taken place in private were opened to the media in April after pressure from fathers’ groups, campaigners and the media, including The Times.

Mr Mostyn said that the parties’ expectation of privacy should override the “limited” freedom of expression allowed under the European Convention on Human Rights.

“There is nothing interesting about this case apart from the fact that it is Earl and Countess Spencer. If this were two anonymous people there would be no press in here at all. It would be fundamentally boring. We are going to be looking at housing and budget. In these circumstances there is no overreaching freedom of expression consideration and privacy must prevail.”

Lewis Marks, QC, representing the countess, said: “There is no public interest in the outcome of this case.”

He said there may be a “prurient interest” in the private lives and family life of the couple which were matters protected by the right to privacy under the European Convention.

“It is inevitable that the witnesses will not give full and frank evidence in front of the media. There are matters which these parties will be inevitably inhibited if the ladies and gentlemen of the press are able to hear and even worse, report, what they have seen.”

He added: “This was not a case for which the rules were changed so that justice can be seen to be done.”

But Mr Justice Munby declined to make a blanket order because to do so would have “implications in other cases”. He said it was a new public policy that the media be allowed to attend Family Division hearings of any nature unless proper grounds could be shown to exclude them.

It had been argued by those representing the Spencers that the only reason the media was interested in their case was because of who they were. “That is dangerous territory because it potentially gives privilege to one group in the community over and above others.”

He said it would mean one law for the celebrities and “another law for those who live their lives in tranquillity and anonymity”.

Mr Marks and Mr Mostyn will submit applications to the judge today for injunctions on press coverage, which could mean very little of the hearing can be reported.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle