Click the case name for better results:

ABC Ltd v Y: ChD 6 Dec 2010

There had been proceedings as to the misuse of confidential information. X, a non-party, now sought disclosure of papers used in that case. The case had been settled by means of a Tomlin Schedule, and that, subject to further order, non-parties might not obtain documents on the court file. Held: The applicant X was entitled … Continue reading ABC Ltd v Y: ChD 6 Dec 2010

Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd: QBD 16 Jul 2020

The court was asked, on a reference back from the Supreme Court: ‘to determine whether the court should require [the interested party] to provide a copy of any other document placed before the judge and referred to in the course of the trial to [the applicant] . . in accordance with the principles laid down … Continue reading Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd: QBD 16 Jul 2020

Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Group): CA 31 Jul 2018

The court was asked important questions about (i) the powers of the court under the CPR and its inherent jurisdiction to permit access to documents by non-parties; (ii) the way in which the court’s discretion should be exercised where an application is within its powers; and (iii) the proper balance to be struck between the … Continue reading Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Group): CA 31 Jul 2018

Pressdram Ltd v Whyte: ChD 30 May 2012

The respondent had been involved in company director disqualification proceedings some 12 years earlier. The claimant, publisher of Private Eye sought disclosure of the associated court papers. Held: The applicant had provided appropriate details of the papers required. The basic principle of open justice applied, and the papers were required for a proper jurnalistic purpose.The … Continue reading Pressdram Ltd v Whyte: ChD 30 May 2012

G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: QBD 2 Dec 2009

The claimants sought an order that the defendants, an internet company in Florida, should disclose the IP address of a registered user of the site with a view to identifying the user and pursuing an action against him or her. Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘Hearings in private under CPR 39.2 (3) and orders under CPR … Continue reading G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc: QBD 2 Dec 2009

Anonymity Orders

The court system has acknowledged that the movement toward wider and wider publication of case law (of which we form part) has potential conflicts with privacy in general, and GDPR and Human Rights in particular. There have therefore been developed much more explicit systems for applying to court for ‘anonymity orders’ – an order that … Continue reading Anonymity Orders