Held, application granted. The operation of the implied undertaking did not preclude the need to undertake a balancing of the competing rights engaged and was simply a factor to be weighed when determining where the balance lay, although the protection it afforded was considerable. The arrangements offered in settlement of financial remedy proceedings between a husband and a wife upon the breakdown on their marriage engaged both parties' right to respect for private life under article 8 of the European Convention, and so the publication of such information was amenable to restrictions depending on the outcome of that balancing exercise. It was notable that Parliament had expressly provided in FPR r 27.11(1)(a) for the media to be excluded from hearings conducted for the purpose of judicially assisted conciliation or negotiation and within that context the husband had a legitimate expectation that the process of negotiating a settlement would be a private one. Although accepting that there must be a question mark whether the bare details of the offer of settlement by the wife or the information concerning the family home engaged the implied undertaking, the article 8 right to respect for private life was a weighty factor in the balancing exercise, in particular because of its relevance to ensuring the efficacy of the parties' efforts to compromise the proceedings. Therefore, publication of the bare details of the open offer of settlement and the information concerning the matrimonial home, in which the children were living, constituted an interference in the article 8 right to respect for private life of the parties and the children. Balancing the competing rights and having regard to the respective importance of those rights and the reasons for interfering with them, the article 8 rights outweighed the article 10 rights engaged in the case. The need to protect the proper administration of justice by ensuring the confidentiality of the process of negotiation intrinsic to financial remedy proceedings, and to the way the court sought to do justice to the parties, outweighed the need for the wife to exercise her right to freedom of expression by publishing the terms of her open offer and information concerning the family home in the press to redress attacks on her reputation. It was undesirable to have negotiations in financial remedy cases proceed in the glare of publicity. Measuring that conclusion against the yardstick of proportionality the order proposed was a proportionate response to the necessity of protecting the proper administration of justice by permitting the parties to negotiate in conditions of confidentiality. Although the order circumscribed to a certain extent the ability of the wife to seek to redress the consequences of her treatment by sections of the foreign media, the order did not prevent her from stating publicly that she wanted a fair settlement and had made a fair offer to try to achieve that or from seeking to rebut other of the disparaging comments made about her (paras 75–79, 83–89, 91, 109–112).