UK: Court Of Appeal Overturns Decision Granting Very Broad Non-Party Access To Court Documents

Last Updated: 4 September 2018
Article by Rachel Lidgate

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court Master's order granting non-party access to the entirety of the hard copy trial bundles in a case that settled before judgment. The decision helpfully clarifies the extent of the court's discretion to grant non-party access to court documents, both under the CPR and under its inherent jurisdiction: Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring [2018] EWCA 1795 (Civ).

The upshot of the decision is that the court has no discretion to permit non-parties to inspect the trial bundles generally, or documents merely referred to in skeleton arguments, witness statements/expert reports, or in open court. In addition to formal documents kept on the court file, which may be provided to non-parties under CPR 5.4C, the court has an inherent jurisdiction to permit inspection of:

  • witness statements and expert reports that stand as evidence in chief during trial (but not documents exhibited to them);
  • documents which are read or treated as read by the court, ie because they have been read out in open court, the judge has been specifically invited to read them (whether in open court or outside court), or it is clear or stated that the judge has read them;
  • skeleton arguments/written submissions and similar advocates' documents deployed at a public hearing; and
  • any other specific documents necessary for a non-party to inspect in order to meet the principle of open justice.

In terms of the exercise of its discretion, the court has to balance the non-party's reasons for seeking inspection against the parties' interests in preserving confidentiality. The court is likely to lean in favour of granting permission where the principle of open justice is engaged and the applicant has a legitimate interest in inspection – and this decision confirms that the principle of open justice will be engaged as soon as there is a hearing of the matter, whether or not it settles before judgment. Conversely, where the open justice principle is not engaged, the court is unlikely to grant permission unless there are strong grounds in the interests of justice.

This decision will be welcomed by litigants as restoring more limited boundaries to the court's discretion to grant non-party access to court documents, in contrast to the very broad approach taken by the Master in this case. However, even following the Court of Appeal's decision, it is clear that litigating parties cannot prevent documents becoming publicly available by settling the case before judgment. The principle of open justice will be engaged once there is a hearing; a judicial decision is not required.

Rachel Lidgate, a partner in our disputes decision, considers the decision further below.

Background

The factual background is set out in our post on the High Court decision. In brief, Graham Dring (on behalf of an asbestos victims support group) brought an application to access the trial bundles and other documents used at the trial of claims against the respondent relating to its former employees' alleged exposure to asbestos. These earlier proceedings had settled in March 2017 (after trial).

The application was made primarily under CPR 5.4C, which codifies the common law principle of open justice. CPR 5.4C(2) provides that a non-party to litigation may, if the court gives permission, "obtain from the records of the court a copy of any other document filed by a party" (that is, any document other than a statement of case or judgment or order made in public, which are available without permission under CPR 5.4C(1)). In the alternative, the applicant contended that the court had power to grant access to such documents under its inherent jurisdiction.

The High Court (Master McCloud) granted the application in respect of almost all categories of documents sought, including the entirety of the paper trial bundle as well as skeleton arguments and transcripts. She did not grant access to documents appearing solely in an electronic trial bundle, which comprised the totality of the parties' disclosure documents whether or not relied on at trial.

The respondent appealed. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal (rather than a High Court judge) in view of the importance of the issues raised.

Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturning the Master's very broad order. It clarified the extent of the court's jurisdiction to order non-party access to court documents, both under CPR 5.4C and its inherent jurisdiction, and the basis on which that discretion should be exercised. Hamblen LJ gave the leading judgment, with which Newey LJ and Sir Brian Leveson P agreed.

The court's jurisdiction under CPR 5.4C

First, the court agreed with the respondent that the Master had exceeded her jurisdiction in purporting to make her order under CPR 5.4C. The "records of the court" for the purposes of that rule are essentially documents kept by the court office as a record of the proceedings, many of which will be of a formal nature. They do not include: trial bundles; trial witness statements or expert reports (though they may include evidence filed for an interim application); skeleton arguments or written submissions; or trial transcripts.

The court's inherent jurisdiction

The respondent accepted that the court's inherent jurisdiction to grant non-party access goes beyond the express powers in CPR 5.4C and includes (as established in GIO Personal Investment Services Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 984) copies of skeleton arguments or written submissions used in lieu of oral submissions. The justification is that open justice requires the public to have the same opportunity to understand the issues as they would have had if the written submissions had been delivered orally.

The Court of Appeal rejected the respondent's submission that the court's inherent jurisdiction did not go beyond this. It said GIO still stands as authority that the jurisdiction does not extend to allowing non-party access to trial documents simply on the basis that they have been referred to in a skeleton argument, witness statement, expert report or in court. However, there was one aspect of the GIO decision in relation to which law and practice had moved on. In light of the increasingly common practice of judges being invited to read documents for themselves, rather than having them read out in court, the court should be regarded as having inherent jurisdiction to allow non-parties access to documents read or treated as read in open court, so as to put non-parties in the same position they would have been in had the trial been conducted orally (see further below).

The Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the current legal position by reference to the main categories of documents that might be sought by a non-party, as follows:

Trial bundles: There is no inherent jurisdiction to allow inspection of trial bundles generally.

Skeleton arguments: The court has inherent jurisdiction to allow inspection of skeleton arguments provided that there is a public hearing at which they are deployed. The same applies to other advocates' documents such as chronologies, dramatis personae, reading lists and written submissions.

Witness statements: Under CPR 32.13 non-parties have the right to inspect witness statements which stand as evidence in chief in the course of the trial. The court has an inherent jurisdiction to allow inspection of such statements after trial. The position is the same for experts' reports.

Exhibits to witness statements: There is no inherent jurisdiction to allow inspection of exhibits.

Documents read or treated as read in open court: Under CPR 31.22 a party may only use a document that has been disclosed in litigation for the purposes of that litigation, subject to certain exceptions including where it has been "read to or by the court, or referred to" at a public hearing. The Court of Appeal referred to the decision in Barings v Coopers & Lybrand [2000] 1 WLR 2353, which suggested a presumption, for these purposes, that where documents are put before the court for the purpose of being read in evidence, they have in fact entered the public domain unless the contrary is shown (eg because the judge did not read them).

In the present case, the Court of Appeal held that, in the context of non-party access to court documents, any such presumption should be limited to documents which the judge is specifically invited to read, such as those referred to in a reading list. It should not include documents which are merely referred to in some other document, whether that is a skeleton argument, witness statement, expert report or some other trial document. The court gave the following list of documents which fall within the court's inherent jurisdiction on this basis, saying they are all documents which are likely to have been read out in open court had the trial been conducted orally:

  • Documents read out in open court;
  • Documents which the judge is invited to read in open court;
  • Documents which the judge is specifically invited to read outside court; and
  • Documents which it is clear or stated that the judge has read.

Other documents necessary to meet the principle of open justice: The public would be allowed to access documents not falling into the above categories where "it is not possible for a reasonable observer to understand the trial evidence, argument or issues without inspection of the document or documents in question".

The exercise of the court's discretion

The Court of Appeal referred to the High Court decision in Dian AO v Davis Frankel & Mead [2005] 1 WLR 2951, in which the court distinguished between documents which have been considered as part of the court's decision making process, and those which have not been judicially considered. It agreed with that distinction, saying that the former category engages the principle of open justice whereas the latter does not.

The Court of Appeal rejected the respondent's submission that the open justice principle is not engaged where a case settles before judgment. The principle is engaged, the court held, once there is an effective hearing. The principle may be "more fully engaged" if the hearing proceeds to a judgment, but it is still engaged where there is a hearing. It is only where an application is determined on the papers, and so there is no hearing, that a judicial decision is necessary to enage the principle.

In exercising its discretion to grant non-party access, whether under CPR 5.4C(2) or the court's inherent jurisdiction, the court has to balance the non-party's reasons for seeking copies of the documents against the parties' private interest in preserving their confidentiality. The decision provides some clarity as to the factors relevant to the balancing exercise, which the court said are likely to include:

  • The extent to which the principle of open justice is engaged;
  • Whether the documents are sought in the interests of open justice;
  • Whether there is a legitimate interest in seeking copies of the documents, and whether this is a public or a private interest;
  • The reasons for seeking to preserve confidentiality; and
  • Any harm which may be caused to the legitimate interests of other parties.

The court endorsed the approach adopted in Dian that the court is likely to lean in favour of granting permission where the principle of open justice is engaged and the applicant has a legitimate interest in inspection. Conversely, where the principle is not engaged, the court is unlikely to grant permission unless there are strong grounds for thinking that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.

In the present case, the Court of Appeal held that the principle of open justice was engaged for all documents in respect of which it found the court had jurisdiction. Further, the Master was clearly entitled to find that the applicant had a legitimate interest and that finding was not open to challenge on appeal. There was no need to go further and find "strong grounds in the interests of justice".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions