Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Supreme Court revisits open justice principles

To what extent is it possible to obtain documents placed before the Court in civil proceedings, if you are not a party to those proceedings? What is the interplay between the rules of civil procedure that concern third party access to documents, and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, outside of the ambit of those rules, to grant access on the basis of the age-old common law principle of open justice? Cape Intermediate Holdings v Dring has brought welcome clarity to these issues.

A third party sought access under the English Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 5.4C) to court records concerning asbestos-related litigation.

Three issues fell to be determined:

  1. The scope of the relevant civil procedural rules. What is the meaning of “court records”?
  1. Does the Court have an inherent power to grant access to documents outside of those procedural rules?
  1. If so, how far does that power extend and how should it be exercised?

Court Records

Court records refer to those documents which the court itself keeps for its own purposes: it cannot refer to every single document generated in connection with a case and filed in court, nor can it depend upon how much of the material still happens to be there when the request is made.

However, the purposes for which court records are kept (namely, in order to run a justice system) are completely different from the purposes for which non-parties may properly be given access to Court documents (the principle of open justice).

Is there a power to grant access outside of the scope of the rules?

There can be no doubt at all that the court rules are not exhaustive of the circumstances in which non-parties may be given access to court documents. They are a minimum and of course it is for a person seeking to persuade the court to allow access outside the rules to show a good case for doing so. However, case after case has recognized that the guiding principle is the need for justice to be done in the open and that courts at all levels have an inherent jurisdiction to allow access in accordance with that principle.”

How should the power be exercised?

The default position is that access should be granted. In evaluating the grounds for opposing access, the court will carry out a fact-specific proportionality exercise. Central to the court’s evaluation will be the purpose of the open justice principle, the potential value of the material in advancing that purpose and any risk of harm which access to the documents may cause to the legitimate interests of others.

See our blog on the Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands’ decision concerning open justice principles. 

 

Supreme Court revisits open justice principles

Leave A Comment