A newspaper, not party to the proceedings, sought access to the Court files, anticipating a significant journalistic story.
Held: Park J allowed the application for copies of certain pleadings and witness statements that had been placed before the court at a hearing in public, even though the application was made after the case had settled. The general principle that the judge applied was that: ‘the courts favour disclosure rather than the withholding of materials if the materials have featured in proceedings in open court.’ In deciding what counted as materials featuring in proceedings in open court he said that: ‘The reference to documents which have been read in open court must, in my view, be regarded as covering the pleadings, and also witness statements which were confirmed in general terms by their makers and which stood as evidence in chief.’
Judges:
Park J
Citations:
[2005] 1 WLR 2965, [2005] EMLR 19, [2005] 3 All ER 155
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Chan U Seek v Alvis Vehicles Ltd ChD 8-May-2003
The claimant appealed a striking out order.
Held: If a claim stood no chance of success, then it should not be allowed to proceed, but where the claim was merely weak it should not be struck out. That would be inconsistent with the needs of . .
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Litigation Practice
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.535110
