{"id":806930,"date":"2026-05-01T15:50:36","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T13:50:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/"},"modified":"2026-05-01T15:50:36","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T13:50:36","slug":"dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution — access to courts — open justice)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

(2) CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc[2017]EWHC811(QB) MrGrahamDringvCapeDistributionLtd,CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc,Concept70Ltd&Ors(InterestedParties)[2017]EWHC2103(QB) R(GuardianNews&MediaLtd)vWestminsterMagistratesCourt[2013]QB618 ChanUSeekvAlvisVehiclesLtd[2005]1WLR2965 NABvSerco[2014]EWHC1255 GIOPersonalInvestmentServicesLtdvLiverpoolandLondonSteamshipP&I AssociationLtd[1999]1WLR984 DianAOvDavisFrankelandMead(afirm)[2005]1WLR2951 BaringsplcvCoopersandLybrand[2000]1WLR2353 TheLawDebentureTrust[2003]EWHC2297(Comm.) SmithklineBeechamBiologicalsSAvConnaughtLaboratoriesInc[1999]4AllER498 ABCLtdvY[2012]1WLR532 VariousClaimantsvNewsGroupNewspapersLtd[2012]1WLR2545 R(Taranissi)vHFEA[2009]EWHC(Admin)130 SayersvSmithklineBeechamplc[2007]EWHC1346(QB) DobsonvHastings[1992]Ch.392 PfizerHealthAbvSchwarzPharmaAg[2010]EWHC3236(Pat.) R(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51 DonoghuevStevenson[1932]AC562 YatesvHMRC[2014]EWCH2311(QB) LillyIcosLtdvPfizerLtd(No.2)[2002]1WLR2253 MarlwoodCommercialIncvKozenyandothers[2005]1WLR104 WilliamsvUniversityofBirmingham[2011]EWCACiv.1242 NestecSAvDualitLtd[2013]EWHC2737(Pat.) Smith(ExecutoroftheEstateofSmith,deceased)vPortswoodHouseLtd[2016]EWHC939(QB) BlueandAshleyvTimesNewspapersLtd[2017]EWHC1553(Comm.) R(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51 StokesvGuest[1968]1WLR1776at1783 \u2018TDN13\u2019authoritiesbeforethecourtbutnotreferredtoinjudgment: HillandBellinghamvBarnsleyandSonsLtdandothers[2013]EWHC520(QB) McGregorvGenco(FC)Ltd[2014]EWHC1376(QB) MacarthyandothersvMarksandSpencerandanother[2014]EWHC3183(QB) WoodwardvSSEnergyandClimateChange[2015]EWHC3604(QB) PrescottvUniversityofStAndrews[2016]CSOH3 —- SUMMARY Thissummaryisprovidedtoassistthereader.Themaintextofjudgmentprevailsintheeventofanyinconsistencybetweenthesummaryandthebodyofthejudgment. Principlesandstatusofthedocumentsinthiscase 1. Therightofaccesstocourtisinherentintheruleoflaw. 2. Opennessofjusticefostersthescrutinyofthecourtsbythepublic,protectstheintegrityofthecourtprocessandassiststhedevelopmentofthelawandlegalknowledge.Ittherebysupportsthepracticaleffectivenessoftherightofaccesstocourt. 3. Thecourtsdonotmerelyprovideapublicservicetothe\u2018users\u2019whoappearbeforethem.Previouscasesformthebasisoftheadvicegiventothosewhosecasesarenowbeforethecourts,orwhoneedtobeadvisedastothebasisonwhichtheirclaimmightfairlybesettled,orwhoneedtobeadvisedthattheircaseishopeless. 5. Accesstoacourt,beingnotmerelytheprovisionofaserviceto\u2018users\u2019entailsthatthepartiessubmittingtothejurisdictiondonothavefullsovereigntytodeterminesimplybyprivateagreementbetweenthemselvestheextenttowhichthepublicmaybemadeawareofanyaspectoftheproceedingsbeforethecourt. 6. Thereisaninherentandforeseeablepossibilitythatmaterialdeployedincourtbytheparties,orfiledupontherecordsofthecourtaspartofitsprocess,willformpartofthecorpusofmaterialwhichmaybedeployedinothercases,usedforthepurposesoflegaladvice,beingacademicallyorjournalisticallydiscussed,orconsideredbyParliament. Therulesandcommonlawjurisdictiontoorderaccesstodocumentsbythepublic 7. CPRrule5.4Cistheprimarymeansbywhichthecourt\u2019scommonlawpowertoallowaccesstodocumentstothepublicfromthecourtrecordisadministeredbutthecommonlawisthemasterandnottheservantoftherules.Therulesprovideaqualifiedandcontrolledsystemofopennessregulatedbythecourtrulesinajudicialmanner. 8. WheredocumentsarefiledontherecordofthecourtthentheyfallwithinthescopeofCPR5.4C(2). 9. Serveddocumentsnotontherecordsofthecourtdonotfallwithinrule 5.4Cbutmaybedisclosedunderthecourt\u2019scommonlawpower. Applicabletest 10. Documentsfiledontherecordofthecourtandwhicharereadortreatedasreadincourtaresubjecttoadefaultpositioninfavouroftheprincipleofopenjusticeiftheapplicanthasalegitimateinterest. 11. Wheretheapplicanthasalegitimateinterestthenthecourtmuststillcarryoutabalancingexerciseinrelationtoanyharmtootherpartieslegitimateinterestswhendecidingwhethertoallowaccess. 12. Documentsontherecordsofthecourtwhicharenotreadortreatedasreadaresubjecttoamorestringenttestnamelythattheremustbestronggroundsforthinkingthataccessisnecessaryintheinterestsofjustice. 13. Theprincipleofopenjusticeisengagednotwithstandingthatacasesettlesbeforejudgment.Itappliestodocumentsinsuchacasewhichhavebeenreadtoorbythecourt,treatedassoread,orwhich\u201chavefeaturedin\u201dtheproceedings. Statusofthedocuments 14. Bundleswhichhavebeenfiledarepartoftherecordsofthecourt.\u2018BundleD\u2019inthiscasedoesnotamounttoabundlefiledatcourt.Thepaperbundlesdofalltobetreatedasfiled. 15. Thepaperdocumentsotherthanthebundleswereretainedincourtattheendoftrialandheldtogetherwiththecourtfiles,andbecamedocumentsfiledontherecordsofthecourt,alternativelythedocumentsotherthanthoseinthebundlesfallwithinthecourt\u2019sgeneraldiscretionastoaccess.Theyweredeployedincourtandplacedbeforethejudgeincludingafterheretiredtoconsiderhisdecision.TheyweresubjecttowhatLordJusticeToulsonreferredtoasthe\u2018defaultposition\u2019thataccessshouldbegivenontheopenjusticeprinciple. 16. TheresidueofbundleDnotalreadycontainedinthepaperbundlesismaterialwhichfallsoutsidethescopeofthedefaultprincipleofopenness. 17. ThereisapowertoorderdisclosureofbundleDunderthecommonlawjurisdictionofthecourt,butIdonotexercisethosepowershere. Legitimateinterestandintendeduse 18. Alegitimateinterestcanincludeacademicinterest,usebyapressuregrouporuseinsomejournalisticformandindeedanynumberofotheruseswhichareulterior(inthepropersenseofthatword)withoutbeingillegitimate. 19. MrDringactsforagroupwhichprovideshelpandsupporttoasbestosvictims.Itsomerespectsitisalsoapressuregroupandisinvolvedinlobbyingandinpromotingasbestosknowledgeandsafety.Thosearelegitimateactivitiesandprovidelegitimateinterest. 20. Theintendeduseistoenablehimandtheforumofwhichheisanofficer,to: \u2022 makethematerialpubliclyavailable, \u2022 bymakingitavailabletopromoteacademicconsiderationastothescienceandhistoryofasbestosandasbestoluxexposureandproduction, \u2022 improvetheunderstandingofthegenesisandlegitimacyofTDN13andanyindustrylobbyingleadingtoitinthe1960sand1970s. \u2022 understandtheindustrialhistoryofCapeanditsdevelopmentofknowledgeofasbestossafety \u2022 clarifytheextenttowhichCapeisorisnotresponsibleforproductsafetyissuesarisingfromthehandlingofasbestoluxboards \u2022 toassistcourtclaimsandtheprovisionofadvicetoasbestosdiseasesufferers. 21. Thosearelegitimateaims. Specificityofapplicationandbalancingexercise 22. Thedegreeofspecificitywhichispossibleinanapplicationunderrule5.4Cmustnecessarilybelimitedinpracticaltermsbythefactthatwithoutseeingthedocumentsinthefirstplacethebestthatcanbeexpectedsoastoassistthecourtisthatgeneralcategoriesofdocumentsbeidentifiedunlessthereisaparticularidentifieddocumentwhichknownaboutandissought. 23. Theclassessoughtinthestatementprovidedwiththeapplicationwere: (i) Allwitnessstatements (ii) Experts\u2019reports (iii) Transcriptsofevidence (iv) AlldocumentsdisclosedbyCapeandotherparties. 24. Iamsatisfiedthat(innoorderofpriority)thecontentofthosedocuments: i. wouldbelikelytobeofacademicandscientificinterestaspartofpublicandsocialdiscourseastothehistoryofasbestossafety,regulationandknowledgeasitdevelopedduringthe20thcentury,ii.wouldbelikelytobeconsideredbyadvisersadvisingpartiestoasbestoslitigationastothemeritsoftheircaseswheneverissuesarisewhichtouchuponTechnicalDataNotice13andconnectedRegulations,iii.islikelytoberelevanttheproductsafetyofasbestosinsofarasunderstoodwithinthemajormanufacturersandconnectedcompaniesascomparedwithgeneralpublicatvariouspointsinthe20thcentury,and iv. islikelytoberelevanttotheextenttowhichemployerdefendantscouldhavebeenexpectedtoappreciatetherisksofasbestos. 25. Partialaccesstothedocumentscouldleadto\u2018cherrypicking\u2019intermsofthepublishingofnegativematerialespeciallyifaccesswasonlygiventomaterialwhichpaintsasbestos,andperhapsCapeinabadlight.Thereisarisk,butamuchreducedrisk,ofcherrypickingifaccessisgivenlessselectivelyandmoreratherthanlesswidely. 26. Arequirementforspecialcircumstancesisdesirableinthecaseofdisclosuredocumentsservedbutnotdeployedattrial,inthisinstancebundleD,toensurethatnon-partiesarenotplacedinabetterpositionthanpartiesinrelationtounusedbutserveddisclosurematerial.IdonotconsiderthatgroundshavebeenmadeoutfordisclosureinrelationtobundleD. 27. IwasnotpresentedwithsubstantialevidenceorargumentfromCapeastoharmtoitwouldsufferfromdisclosure,atthelevelofparticulardocumentsorclassesofdocumentwithinthepaperfiles. 28. IdonotregardtheposthocconcernsnowraisedbyCapeabouttheprivacyofpersonsnamedinthedocumentsinconnectionwithasbestosrelateddiseaseasagroundforrefusingpublicdisclosureofthesedocumentsasacredibleorweightyoneinthisinstance. Conclusions 29. Thebalanceisinfavourofdisclosureof: i. thewitnessstatementsincludingexhibits, ii. expertreports, iii. transcripts,iv.discloseddocumentsreliedonbythepartiesattrialiethosein thepaperbundlesonly, v. writtensubmissionsandskeletons, vi. Statementsofcasetoincluderequestsforfurtherinformationandanswersifcontainedinthebundlesreliedonattrial. InformaltermsIamthereforeallowingtheapplicationinrelationtodocumentclasses(i)to(iii)listedinthestatementofMsBainsdated6April2017butonlypartiallyallowingdisclosureofdocumentsincategory(iv).Iamalsoallowingdisclosureofcertainotherdocumentsasisapparentfromthelistjustsetout. 30. IamexcludingfromdisclosurethecontentsofbundleDforreasonsalreadygiven.Iamalsoexcludingcopiesofthedisclosurestatementsofthepartiesbecausethatwouldtendtoundermine(bygivingdisclosurebyindirectmeans)thedecisionIhavemadethatbundleDisnotdisclosed. 31. TheApplicantmayreturntocourttoseekadecisionastoaccessinrespectofanydocumentsinbundleDwhichitappearsuponconsiderationwereomittedfromthepaperbundles,yetwereinfactreliedonatcourt(thisoughttobeapparentfromthedocumentsforwhichaccesshasbeengivenasabove).BundleDshallremainimpoundedincourt. 32. ThedocumentssubjecttodisclosuretoMrDringshallthereforebemadeavailablebythecourttotheApplicant\u2019ssolicitorasanofficerofthecourtforcopyingorscanninguponthegivingofanundertakingthatdocumentsnotwithinthescopeofthisorder,ifcontainedinthefiles,willnotbecopied. 33. IdirectthatthecourtfileandimpoundedbundleDshallnotbedestroyedintheusualcourseofadministrationofthecourtwithoutanorderofthecourt. —- FULLJUDGMENT Introduction 1. LordDiplockinHomeOfficevHarman[1983]AC280at303C CitedinR(GuardianNews)vWestminsterMagistrates\u2019Court(CA)[2013]QB630. said(inaquotationfromJeremyBenthamandLordShawofDunfermline): \u201cPublicityistheverysoulofjustice.Itisthekeenestspurtoexertion,andthesurestofallguardsagainstimprobity.Itkeepsthejudgehimself,whiletrying,undertrial\u201d. 2. Ifonewere,however,toconsideracourtinwhichtherewasarightforthepublictoscrutiniseeverydetailofeverycase,foranypurposewithoutlimit,onecanreadilyseethatmanywouldfeartoventureintoitwiththeirbusinesssecrets,theirfamilydisputes,theirmostintimatepersonaldetails.Everypersonfrombusinesseswithvaluablecommercialtradeinformationtovulnerablepersonswouldrisklosingmore\u2013whetherfinanciallyorinpersonalterms\u2013thanjusticemightseemtothemtobeworth. 3. Onemustnotthereforereachforanintellectuallycomfortable,butovergeneralised,beliefthat\u2018opennessisalwaysandnecessarilyforthebest\u2019.Itismorenuancedthanthat.Thelawandtherulesofcourthavedevelopedtoprovideaframeworkforensuringthatabalanceisstruckbetweenopennesstothepublic,andtheprotectionofthecorefunctionofthecourtwhichisthedoingofjusticeinthecasebeforeit.Capeforexampleherearguedthat\u201copenjustice\u201dmustnotbeseenastheanswertoeachandeveryapplicationforaccesstocourtrecords.Thereisajudicialprocessunderthecourtrulesandthedecisionismadeaccordingly,andnotbyblindlyfollowingaprinciplewithoutregardtothefactsofagivencase.ThatiswhyinthiscaseImustapproachthecaseonitsownfacts,whilstapplyingtheunderlyingrulesandprinciples. 4. Thisjudgmentdealswithsignificantquestionsastoamemberofthepublic\u2019srightsofaccesstodocuments\u2018filedontherecordsofthecourt\u2019whichincludematerialrelatingtothehistoryanddevelopmentofknowledgeinthe20thcenturyabouttherisksofasbestos. 5. Asisbynowwellunderstood,exposuretoinhaledasbestoscancauseterminalillness,aswellasdisability.Theextenttowhichsocietyadapteditsoutlooktowardstherisksofasbestosinthe20thcenturyisevidencedbythelonghistoryofcaselaw,reportsandarticleswhichpaintthepublicpictureofwhatwasunderstoodtobethecaseintermsofrisksandreasonablesafetyrequirementswhenhandlingasbestos-containingproducts. 6. Theimpactofasbestosrelateddiseaseinthiscountry(Iconfinemyselftothiscountrybutthewiderstoryofasbestosisaglobalone)inlegaltermsincludesthelargenumberofclaimsfordamagesforinjuryanddeathcausedbywrongfulasbestosexposure,oftenbyemployerswhoarecoveredbyinsurancedatingbackseveraldecades.Italsoincludessecondaryvictimclaims,suchasthechildofanasbestosworkerparent,whogoesontodevelopmesotheliomadecadesaftertheparent\u2019sdeath,andwheretheexposureduringchildhoodwasfromasbestosfibresclingingtotheoverallsoftheparentontheirreturnhomeattheendofeachworkingday. 7. Whenonelooksatasbestos-relatedtortsoneoftenhastoconsiderquitehistoricmaterial,andtoconsiderwhattheextentofknowledgeatthematerialtimewasabouttherisksofexposure.Itisinthatcontextthatthematerialcontainedinthefileswhicharethesubjectmatterofthisapplicationmustbeseen. 8. Inthiscase,thedocumentsinquestiontowhichMrDringseeksaccesswereincourtforthepurposesofalengthytrialconductedbyPickenJ,whichinbroadtermsraisedquestionsaboutwhatwasknown,andwhen,abouttheproductsafetyofasbestosbythebestknownmanufactureroftheproduct(Capeanditsconnectedcompanies).Itwaslitigationbroughtbyinsurers.ThiswasreferredtoastheProductLiabilitylitigationtodistinguishitfromaseparateclaim,withwhichIdonotconcernmyselfherebutwhichwasheardatthesametrial.Thedocumentscomprisethetrialbundles(oneofwhich,bundleD,wassupplied\u2018online\u2019attrialviaadocumentmanagementsystemandnotonpaper),theskeletons,submissionsanddailytranscriptswhichwereprovidedtothejudge.Alsosoughtarestatementsofcasetotheextentnotalreadyprovided.BundleDcomprisedthetotalityoftheparties\u2019disclosuredocumentswhetherornotdeployedattrial.Theotherbundleswere\u2018core\u2019bundlesandonlycontaineddocumentsactuallyreliedonatthetrial. 9. Unusually(andIsuspectuniquelyinthehistoryofasbestoslitigation),thedisclosureexerciseinvolvedtheputtingtogetherofextensivequantitiesofhistoricmaterialandrecordsrelatingtoasbestossafetyandregulationinawaywhichonecansafelytakeitwouldhavebeendisproportionateinarun-of-the-millasbestosclaim.Thisclaimwaslargeenoughtojustify suchexpenditureandtime.MrIstedforCapeinhisfirstwitnessstatementgaveasuccinctsummaryofthelitigationatpara.10: \u201cIntheProductLiabilityclaims,theinsurersallegedthattheemployeeshadbeenexposedtoasbestosdustwhenworkingwith,orinthevicinityofothersworkingwith,\u2018Asbestolux\u2019and\u2018Marinite\u2019boards(asbestosinsulationboardswhichhadbeenmanufacturedandsuppliedbymembersoftheCapegroupofcompanies).TheprincipalallegationwasthatCapeand\/ortherelevantsubsidiarycompanymanufacturing\u2018Asbestolux\u2019and\u2018Marinite\u2019boardshadfailedadequatelytowarnoftherisksarisingfromoccupationalasbestosexposure.\u201dandat19: \u201cOverthecourseoftwoweeks,expertevidencewasgivenbyMr MartinStear,fortheClaimants,andbyProfessorSirAlasdairBreckenridgeandProfessorRogerWileyforCape…Followingtheconclusionofthetrial,butbeforeanyjudgmenthadbeenhandeddown,theProductLiabilityclaimsandtheCDLclaimsettled.\u201dAndat18inhissecondstatement: \u201cAspartofthenegotiatedsettlement,anarrangementwasreachedwherebythelegalrepresentativesactingfortheClaimantsintheProductLiabilityandCDLclaimswoulddestroytheirhardcopybundles(orwould,inthealternative,returntheirhardcopybundlestotheirclients)andtheiraccesstotheelectronictrialbundlewouldbewithdrawn.Thepurposeofthis,sofarasCapewasconcerned,wastoensurethattheirconfidentialdocumentswerenotusedinanunauthorisedmannerorplacedinthepublicdomainwithouttheirknowledge.\u201d 10. Iwillnotgointodetailofthepleadingsintheunderlyingcasebutanexampleavermentwhichhighlightstheflavourofthecaseisat3.2.4oftheAmendedParticularsofClaim.Thiswas,insummary,acaseaboutwhatCapeknewandwhen,inthe1960sand1970sorbefore,abouttherisksofasbestosexposureandthebehaviourofitsproductswhensubjecttomanipulationsoastogiveofffibreswhichcouldcausemesothelioma.ItraisedquestionsaboutwhetherCapeknewbut knowinglyfailedtotakestepstomakecleartherisksinvolvedofwhichitwassaidtobeaware.Para3.2.4oftheAmendedParticularsstates: \u201cBywayofsingleexample,theClaimantreliesuponthetranscriptoftheevidencegivenbytwoof[Cape\u2019s]directors(DrGazeandMrHigham)givenonthe4thand5thJune1975.Thecombinedeffectoftheirevidencewasthattheycoulddirecttheactivitiesoftheirsubordinatecompaniesinrespectofhealthandsafety;thattheyhadknownoftheriskofasbestoscausingmesotheliomafromaround1960;thattheyeitherdidoroughttohaveprovidedwarningstothecompaniestheyweresellingasbestostointheUSAinoraround1960;thattheycouldhaveputwarningsontheirboardproductsfromaround10yearspriortotheirgivingevidencein1975\u201d. 11. Thetrialproceededtoaconclusionandthejudgeretiredtoconsiderareserveddecision,butpriortojudgmentasettlementwasreachedoutofcourt.Ihavesetoutmoreofthehistoryintwopreviousjudgmentsasfollows,towhichitisessentialtohavereferencewhenreadingthisjudgment: (i) TheAsbestosVictimsSupportGroupsForumUKv(1)Concept70Ltd&Ors,(2)CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc[2017]EWHC811(QB)and (ii) MrGrahamDringvCapeDistributionLtd,CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc,Concept70Ltd&Ors(InterestedParties)[2017]EWHC2103(QB)andreferenceshouldbehadtothosejudgmentsbecauseIwillnotrepeattheircontentshere. 12. Thosedecisionssufficetodemonstratetheimportanceplacedbytheapplicantoncontentofthefilesincourt,andthereaderwillseetheresomereferenceto\u2018tweets\u2019andotherpublicstatementsbycounselintheunderlyingclaimastotheirsignificanceandindeedalsoquotingsomeoftheirscientificcontent(whichisnotdeniedbyCapebutastotheimplicationsofwhichthereisconsiderabledisagreementforanotherday).Theoppositionanddeploymentoflegalresourcesonthepartof theinterestedCapepartiesrathersignalsthattheapplicationisofimportancetothemtoo. 13. Powerpointslidesfromapublicconference,placedinevidencebeforeme,indicatethatcounselforMrRawlinsonQCforConcept70followingtheconclusionoftheunderlyingtrialfeltthatthedisclosureinthiscaserevealedthat\u201cCapewasstillsellingAsbestoluxin1980.\u201d,\u201cSignificantomissionsinpreviouscases\u201d,\u201cHandlingAIBproduceddustlevelsmuchhigherthananticipated\u201dand\u201cMaybecomethesinglemostimportantweaponagainstTDN13 TechnicalDataNote13wasadocumentcreatedinthe1970\u2019swhich\u2013andhereItreadcarefullybecauseitisamatterofcontroversy\u2013referredtoorgaveguidanceastoaminimumlevelofasbestosexposurewhichwasatthetimeregardedbythebodywhichproduceditasbeingacceptable.ItisamatterofcontroversywhichIdonotneedtoresolvehereastowhetherTDN13,whichappearstohavebeeninfluentialintheregulationoftheasbestosindustry,wasaspeciesof\u2018safetystandard\u2019orwhetheritwasthecreationoftheasbestosindustryforself-servingendswhilstknowingthetruerisksofasbestosexposure. \u201d. 14. Thisjudgmentisnecessarilyalengthyoneinpartbecauseoftheweightofauthoritycitedtothecourtandarguedoverbyleadingcounselappearingwiththeirjuniorsforthegreaterpartofthreedaysandinpartbecauseofthesignificanceofthemattersarguedoverwhichspanareassuchasopennessofjusticeandtheprotectionofthelegitimaterightsoflitigants,andthepublicinterest,ifany,inthematerialinthiscase.Ihaveaccordinglysplitthejudgmentintotwoparts. Structureofthisjudgment 15. InPart1Idealwiththelegalissueswhichrelatetomattersofprinciple,jurisdictionandprocess.InthatPartIhavesetouttheparties\u2019argumentsandthenmydecision. 16. InPart2Idealwithissuesastothestandingoftheapplicant,specificityoftheapplicationandthebalancingexerciseinrelationtothisapplication,andinthatPartmydecisionissetoutatthesametimeasaconsiderationofthepointsmadebytheparties. 17. InconsideringjudgmentIhadbeforemethefollowingwitnessstatements: ForMrDring: HarminderBains(6\/4\/17,8\/6\/17,22\/9\/17) GrahamDring(5\/6\/17)ForCape: JonathanIsted(19\/6\/17,8\/9\/17) — Part1:Principles,JurisdictionandProcess 18. TheapplicablecourtruleinthiscaseincivilcasesisCPR5.4C(2): \u201cAnon-partymay,ifthecourtgivespermission,obtainfromtherecordsofthecourtacopyofanyotherdocumentfiledbyaparty,orcommunicationbetweenacourtandapartyoranotherperson.\u201d Applicant\u2019sargument 19. TheapplicantthroughMrWeirQCarguedthat,albeithedidnotneednecessarilytogobeyondthecourtrulesthemselves(thescopeofthecourt\u2019sdiscretionfoundtherebeingample,hesaid,forhisclient\u2019spurposes),thepowerofthecourttoallowdisclosureofdocumentsexistsasamatterofcommonlaw.Thecourtrulesexist,inthiscontext,toprovideaprocessratherthantocreatethepower. 20. TothateffecthecitedR(GuardianNews&MediaLtd)vWestminsterMagistratesCourt[2013]QB618,perToulsonLJat75.Thiswasinthecontextofcriminalprocedurerules: \u201c\u2026IdonotconsiderthattheprovisionsoftheCriminalProcedureRulesarerelevanttothecentralissue.ThefactthattherulesnowlawdownaprocedurebywhichapersonwantingaccesstodocumentsofthekindsoughtbytheGuardianshouldmakehisapplicationisentirelyconsistentwiththecourthavinganunderlyingpowertoallowsuchanapplication.Thepowerexistsatcommonlaw;therulessetoutaprocess.\u201d Meaningoftheexpression\u201cRecordsoftheCourt\u201d 21. MrWeirarguedthatrule5.4Cincludesalldocumentswhichare\u2018inthecourtfile\u2019.PerParkJinChanUSeekvAlvisVehiclesLtd[2005]1WLR2965at18: \u201c18. Documents(a),(b)and(c)listedintheapplicationnoticearewithintherecordsofthecourt.Theyaretheparticularsofclaim,thedefenceandthereply.Thedocumentsat(d)intheapplicationnoticearenotwithintherecordsofthecourt.Theyare\u201crequestandrepliestorequestsforfurtherinformation\u201d.Thedocumentswithin(e)oftheapplicationnoticearewithintherecordsofthecourt.Theyarethewitnessstatementsofsixnamedwitnesses.Thedocumentswithin(f)arenot.Althoughtheyaredescribedasexhibits,thedocumentsidentifiedinpara(f)areinfactnumberedpagesinoneofthemanyfilesofdocumentswhichwereusedinthetrial.Thosefileswereremovedbythepartieswhenthecasesettled.Thustheyarenotpartoftherecordsofthecourt.\u201d 22. MrWeir\u2019spositionwasthattheeffectofthedecisionasto(f)inChanUSeekwasthatthebundlesusedatrial(inChanUSeek,actuallysomepageswithinthebundles)wereinprinciplepartoftherecordsofthecourtbutthatitappearedfromthequotationthat,oncehavingbeenremovedfromcourtatconclusionofthecase,thecourttooktheviewthatdocumentsin(f)had\u2018thus\u2019\u2013iebythatmeans\u2013ceasedtobeapartoftherecordsofthecourt. 23. IwastakentoNABvSerco[2014]EWHC1255perBeanJ.at39whichwasreliedonasprovidingrathermorerecentclaritythatcourtbundlesareindeedpartoftherecordsofthecourt,atleastaslongastheyremainwithinthecourt\u2019spossession: \u201cCPR5.4Crecognisesthattheremaybealegitimatepublicinterestintheinspectionnotonlyofstatementsofcaselodgedwiththecourt,butalso,withpermission,otherdocumentssuchaswitnessstatementsorexhibitsplacedonthecourtfile.Thepublicinterestisnotconfinedtocaseswherethecourthasgivenjudgmentanditissoughttoseewhethertheunderlyingdocumentsprovidefurtherilluminationofthejudgment.Itmaybejustassignificanttodiscoverwhyacasesettled.ItistruethatanapplicationtoinspectdocumentsunderCPR5.4C(2)maybemadetoolatetobeeffectiveifallthecopiesofcourtbundleshavebeenreturnedtotheparties,asistheusualpracticewhenacasehasbeenconcludedandnoappealispending.Butthatisamatterofmechanics.Inthiscase,atthetimewhentheGuardianmadeitsapplication,thecourthadretainedthewitnessstatementsandexhibits.\u201d 24. Iwasbrieflytakentosomehistoryontheopennessorotherwiseofbundlestothepublic.InGioPersonalInvestmentServicesLtdvLiverpoolandLondonSteamshipP&IAssociationLtd[1999]1WLR984at995FperPotterLJ: \u201cSofarasconcernsdocumentsthatformpartoftheevidenceorcorebundles,therehashistoricallybeennoright,andthereiscurrentlynoprovision,whichenablesamemberofthepublicpresentincourttosee,examineorcopyadocumentsimplyonthebasisthatithasbeenreferredtoincourtorreadbythejudge.Insofarasitmaybereadoutitwill\u201centerthepublicdomain\u201dinthesensealreadyreferredtoandamemberofthepressorpublicmayquotewhatisreadoutbuttherightofaccesstoitforpurposesoffurtheruseofinformationdependsonthatperson\u2019sabilitytoobtainacopyofthedocumentfromoneofthepartiesorbyotherlawfulmeans.Thereisnoprovisionbywhichthecourtmay,regardlessofthewishesofthepartiestothelitigation,makesuchadocumentavailabletoamemberofthepublic,nor,sofarassuchdocumentsareconcerned,doIconsiderthatanyrecentdevelopmentincourtprocedurejustifiesthecourtcontemplatingsuchanexerciseunderitsinherentjurisdiction\u2026\u201d 25. InNABvSercoBeanJnotedatpara.29thathedidnotregardthecaseofGIOasanylongergoodlawonthispoint,partlybecauseofthenoncitationofoneauthorityinthatcase,partlybecausetheCPRhadbeenintroducedandthedecisionhadbeenreachedundertheoldcourtrules(theRSC),andlastlythat: \u201cQuiteapartfromtheRules,thecommonlawapproachtothedisclosureofdocumentsincorebundleshaschangedsignificantlysince1998,asshownbythemostrecentauthorityofR(Guardian NewsandMediaLtd)vCityofWestminsterMagistratesCourt[2013]QB618\u2026\u201d 26. InBlueandAshleyvTimesNewspapers[2017]EWHC1553(Comm.)LeggattJconsideredthescopeofthecourt\u2019sgeneraldiscretiontoallowdisclosureofdocumentsincircumstanceswhereadocumenthadbeenservedbutnotfiled.Heconcludedat10that: \u201cthereisnothingintheCivilProcedureRuleswhichprecludesthecourtfrommakinganorderunderitscommonlawpowerstoenableanon-partytoobtainacopyofadocumentwhichhasbeenservedinthelitigation,evenifthedocumenthasnotbeenfiledbyaparty\u201d Isthereadifferenceofapproachbetweendocumentsdependingontheextentoftheiruseornon-useincourt? 27. MrWeir\u2019spositionwasthatthelineofauthoritiesonaccesstocourtrecordsshowsadifferenceofapproachasbetweendocumentsreadto,ortreatedasreadtoinopencourt,andthosenotsotreated.PerPotter LJinGIO(supra.)at993B, \u201c\u2026.whilethepartiestoanactionhavefreeaccesstoaffidavitsandotherdocumentsfiledintheaction,amemberofthepublicrequiresleavetoobtainsuchaccesswhich,nodoubt,willbereadilygiveniftheaffidavitorotherdocumenthasbeenreadinopencourt InGIO,thisextendedtowitnessstatementsorderedtostandasevidenceinchief(ie,notinaliteralsense\u2018read\u2019aloudinopencourt),butnottoexhibitsreferredtointhem. .\u201d PerMoore-BickJinDianAOvDavisFrankelandMead(afirm)[2005]1WLR2951: \u201cTheaffidavitsreferredtointheorderswere,asIhavesaid,consideredbythecourtaspartofitsjudicialfunction.Theymayhavebeenreadoutinthecourseoftheproceedings,butIthinkitmorelikelythattheywerereadbythejudgeinprivateaspartofhispreparationforthehearingandthatparticularpassageswerereferredtoatthehearingitself.Inaccordancewiththepracticeofthecourtthehearingswouldallhavetakenplaceinchambersratherthanopencourt,butitisclearfromauthoritiessuchasBaringsplcvCoopersandLybrand[2000]1WLR2353andtheLawDebentureTrustcase[2003]EWHC2297(Comm)thattheseaffidavitsoughttobetreatedasiftheyhadbeenreadinopencourtandthatanyonewithalegitimateinterestoughttobeallowedreasonableaccesstotheminaccordancewiththeprincipleofopenjustice.[\u2026] 57. Ontheotherhand,Idonotconsiderthatthecourtshouldbeasreadytogivepermissiontosearchfor,inspectorcopyaffidavitsthatwerenotreadbythecourtaspartofthedecision-makingprocess,suchasthosefiledinsupportof,orinoppositionto,theapplicationforsummaryjudgmentinthiscase.Thesewerefiledpursuanttotherequirementsoftherulesbutonlyforthepurposesofadministration.Theprincipleofopenjusticedoesnotcomeintoplayatallinrelationtothesedocuments.Idonotthinkthecourtshouldbewillingtogiveaccesstodocumentsofthekindasaroutinematter,butshouldonlydosoiftherearestronggroundsforthinkingthatitisnecessaryintheinterestsofjusticetodoso.\u201dPerParkJinChanUSeek(supra.)at31: \u201c\u2026thecourtsfavourdisclosureratherthanwithholdingofmaterialsifthematerialshavefeaturedinproceedingsinopencourt\u2026\u201d PerToulsonLJinR(GuardianNews)vWestminsterMagistrates\u2019Court(supra.)at85: \u201cInacasewheredocumentshavebeenplacedbeforeajudgeandreferredtointhecourseofproceedings,inmyjudgmentthedefaultpositionshouldbethataccessshouldbepermittedontheopenjusticeprinciple\u201d Theroleof\u2018openofjustice\u2019inpublicaccessapplicationsundertheCPR 28. MrWeirarguedthatthedictaespeciallyinGuardianNewsclearlyfavourthepositionthatwhereadocumentisreadortreatedasreadincourtthenaccessibilitytothepublicisthedefaultposition.InChanUSeekthecharacterisationwaswhetherdocumentsfeaturedinproceedingsinopencourt.HecitedSmithklineBeechamBiologicalsSAvConnaughtLaboratoriesInc[1999]4AllER498509c-eandBaringsplcvCoopersandLybrand[2000]1WLR2353at52-52,totheeffectthatstrictreadingincourtisnotrequired:modernpracticefavourspre-reading,andtheuseofstatementsasevidenceinchiefforexample,andthattheeffectofBaringsisthattheonusisonapartyopposingdisclosuretoshowthatadocumenthadnotenteredthepublicdomain. 29. Astotheprinciplesapplicablewhenapplyingtheconceptofopenjustice,intheGuardianNewscaseat79IwasreferredtoToulsonLJ\u2019sobservationthatthepurposeoftheopennessprincipleisto\u201cenablethepublictounderstandandscrutinizethejusticesystemofwhichthecourtsaretheadministrators\u201d.Itwasarguedhoweverthatthefactthattheopennessprinciplehasthatasitspurposedoesnotmeanthatanapplicanthastoshowthatinanygivenapplicationtothecourthepersonallyhasashisaimthescrutinyofthejusticesystem.Itwassufficient,onMrDring\u2019scase,thatthereisalegitimateinterestinseekingdisclosure. 30. Counselrelied,bywayofanexamplesaidtoillustratehispoint,ontheGiocase.Inthatcasethepartyseekingdisclosureofdocumentsfiledontherecordwasnotdoingsoforthepurposeofscrutinisingproceedingsinourcourts:itwasseekingthemexpresslyforitsowncommercialuse.Thejudgeatfirstinstancerefusedaccess.TheCourtofAppealreversingthatdecisionheldat996G-997Athat: \u2018\u2026quiteapartfromtheinterestsofthepress(whoaremembersofthepublicforthispurpose)mostpersonswhoattendatrialwhentheyarenotpartiestoitordirectlyinterestedinitdosoinfurtheranceofsomespecialinterest,whetherforpurposesofeducation,critiqueorresearch,orbyreasonofmembershipofapressuregroup,orforsomeotherulteriorbutlegitimatemotive.\u2026Inmyviewtheappropriatejudicialapproachtoanapplicationofthiskindinacomplicatedcaseistoregardanymemberofthepublicwhoforlegitimatereasonsappliesforacopyofcounsel\u2019swrittenopeningorskeletonargument,whenithasbeenacceptedbythejudgeinlieuofanoralopening,asprimafacieentitledtoit\u201d. 31. HealsocitedABCLtdvY[2012]1WLR532perLewisonJat42dealingwithcaseswhereadocumenthasformedpartofthedecisionmakingprocess \u201cInsuchacaseifanapplicantcanshowa\u2018legitimateinterest\u2019inhavingaccesstothedocumentsthecourtsshouldleaninfavourofallowingaccess\u201d 32. AlsocitedwasVosJashethenwasinVariousClaimantsvNewsGroupNewspapersLtd[2012]1WLR2545at65wherehereiteratedthatthecourtwillleaninfavourofdisclosurewhereadocumenthasbeenreadbyortothejudge.Inthatcaseat66VosLJdidhoweveralsoindicatethattherethatthecourtshouldlooktotheusewhichwillbemadeofthedocumentsandthatitisnecessarytoconsiderhowfarthedocumentsare\u2018trulyrequired\u2026inordertoproperlyunderstandandreportthecourtproceedingsinwhichtheywerereferredtoandreliedupon\u2019. Whatconstitutesa\u2018legitimateinterest\u2019forthepurposeofpublicaccesstothecourtrecord? 33. IwastakentoTheLawDebentureTrust(documentsdisclosedwheretheymightprovideabasisforanallegationoffraud),R(Taranissi)vHFEA[2009]EWHC(Admin)130at6:\u201cAnapplicationfordisclosureforthepurposesofcollaterallitigationdoesnotmeaninanysensethattheordercannotbemade\u201d),ChanUseek:applicationforpurposesofpursuinganewsstory,heldtobealegitimateinterest,andSayersvSmithklineBeechamplc[2007]EWHC1346(QB)(expertreportsdisclosedtoensurethatdecisionmakerselsewherewerenotdeprivedofinformationastothepossibilitythataflawedprocessofanalysingdatahadbeenused). 34. InSayersinparticularatpara.21KeithJsaidinrelationtorule5.4C(2): \u201cItshouldbenotedthattheruleonlyappliestodocumentswhichhavebeenfiledwiththecourt.Itdoesnot,forexample,applytodocumentswhichhavebeenreferredtointhedocumentsfiledwiththecourt,butwhichwerenotthemselvesfiledwiththecourt.Andevenwithdocumentsfiledwiththecourt,theauthoritiesdrawadistinctionbetweendocumentswhichhavebeenreadorbeentreatedashavingbeenreadinopencourtontheonehand,anddocumentsontheotherwhich,thoughfiled,haveneverbeenreadorbeentreatedasreadbythejudge.Anyonewithalegitimateinterestinhavingaccesstoacopyofadocumentwhichhasbeenreadorbeentreatedasreadbythejudgeshouldnormallybeallowedtohaveit.\u201d(ThejudgethenreferredtothehigherDianAOtestforunreaddocuments,andtothebalancingexerciseforthecourttoperform). Doessettlementbeforejudgmentmakeadifference? 35. MrWeirarguedthat,followingTheLawDebentureTrust[2003]EWHC2297Comm.thefactthatacasesettledwithoutjudgmentdidnotpreventtheopenjusticeprinciplefromapplying.PerColmanJat31-34whoobservedat34that \u201c\u2026theessentialpurposeofgrantingaccesstosuchdocumentsistoprovideopenjustice,thatistosaytofacilitatemaintenanceofthequalityofthejudicialprocessinallitsdimensions\u2026thathoweverdoesnotinvolvemerelytheperceivedqualityoffinaljudgmentswithreferencetotheevidence,thesubmissionsandthelaw,butthequalityofjudicialcontrolonadaytodaybasis.\u2026ifsuchanorderisappropriatebeforejudgment,\u2026thereisnologicalobjectiontosuchanorderwhere,asinthepresentcase,thehearingproceededforseveraldaysandthensettled.\u201d 36. Theabovewasacasewherewhatwassoughtwerecopiesofadvocates\u2019submissions.InNABvSerco,BeanJat39stateddealingwithaccesstovariousdocumentsinthehearingbundles: \u201cThepublicinterestisnotconfinedtocaseswherethecourthasgivenjudgmentanditissoughttoseewhethertheunderlyingdocumentsprovidefurtherilluminationofthejudgment.Itmaybejustassignificanttodiscoverwhyacasesettled.ItistruethatanapplicationunderCPR5.4C(2)maybemadetoolatetobeeffectiveifallthecopiesofcourtbundleshavebeenreturnedtotheparties,asistheusualpracticewhenacasehasbeenconcludedadnoappealispending.Butthatisamatterofmechanics.Inthiscase,atthetimetheGuardianmadeitsapplication,thecourthadretainedthewitnessstatementsandexhibits.\u201d Cape\u2019sargument 37. MrFenwickQCpointedout,Isuspectcorrectly,thatthisapplicationisunprecedentedastoitsscope.ItwasCape\u2019spositionthatnotonlyisthisapplicationunprecedentedinscope,itisalsoinCape\u2019sviewanapplicationlackinganyclearlydefinedlegitimatepurpose. 38. Itwassaidthatthereisnolegalbasisfortheordersoughtandthatthecourtlacksjurisdictiontomakeit.Indeeditwassaidthattheevidenceinsupportwasinsufficienttoenablethiscourttodecidetheapplicationatall.Capehadgivenanundertakingtopreservethedocumentsinquestionsothatfuturelitigantscouldapplyfordisclosureiftherulesandlawpermitonaninterpartsbasisandinthelightofthis. 39. Properlycharacterised,thisapplicationwasintrutha\u2018fishingexpedition\u2019ofthesortsooftenreferredtoincourtsandincaselawthatoneistemptedtoobservethatfishingmaybewhatthemanontheClaphamomnibusdoesduringhisraredaysoff.Itwassaidtobespeculative,andevenif(whichwasopposed)itwasallowedatallitshouldbeonalimitedbasisonly. Principleofopenjustice 40. TherewasnodisputebyCapethatthemainrelevantruleis5.4C(2).ItisarulewhichwassaidtobesimilartotheoldruleoftheRSC,namelyRSCOrd.63r4.DobsonvHastings[1992]Ch.392perSirDonaldNichollsV-Cwascitedat406thus: \u201cCasesandcircumstancesvarysowidelythatanyattempttolegislateindetailinadvanceforaccesstoparticulartypesofdocumentsinparticulartypesofcasesacrossthewholespectrumofHighCourtlitigationwouldbeimpossible.Sotherulesprovide,ineffect,ageneralprohibitionbutwithabuilt-insafetyvalve:anypersonmayapply,exparte,(viz.withminimumformalityandexpense)tothecourtforleave.Thecourtwillthenconsiderallthecircumstances.\u201d 41. ThepurposeoftheprincipleofopenjusticewascharacterisedbyCapeinrelianceontheDianAOauthorityverydifferentlyfromtheapproachadvocatedbyMrWeir. 42. ItwasCape\u2019spositionthattheprincipleofopenjusticewasnotengagedatallincircumstanceswhereacasehadsettled(aswasthecaseinbothDianAOandthecasenowbeforeme).Atpara.30ofDianAOMoore-BickJstatedthat: \u201c30. Itcouldbearguedthattheprincipleofopenjusticedemandsthatthecourtrecordsbeopentoallandsundryasarightinordertoenableanyonewhowishestodosotosatisfyhimselfthatjusticewasdoneinanygivencase.Butthathasneverbeenthelawanditisnotwhatrule5.4says….Theprincipleofopenjusticeisprimarilyconcernedwithmonitoringthedecision-makingprocessasittakesplace,notwithreviewingtheprocesslongaftertheevent.InthiscontextitisinterestingtonotethatCPR32.13dealingwithwitnessstatementsprovidesthatastatementwhichstandsasevidenceinchiefatthetrialisopentoinspectiononlyduringthecourseofthetrial. 31. Thispointisofsomerelevanceinthepresentcasebecausetheactioninquestionwasbegunin1994andwasconcludedbycompromisein1996.[Theapplicantnon-party]hasnointerestintheperformanceofthejudicialfunctioninthatcase,whichasfarasonecantellwasinanyeventverylimited.Itsimplyseekspermissiontousethecourtfileasasourceofpotentiallyusefulinformationtoassistitinotherlitigation.Thatdoesnotinmyviewengagetheprincipleofopenjustice.\u201d 43. Cape\u2019spositionontheabove,andinrelationtothepassagesfromDian AOwhichIhavequotedaboveinrelationtoMrWeirQC\u2019sargument(paras.56-57oftheDianAOjudgment)wasthattheproperinterpretationofthedictareliedonbyMrDring\u2019scounseltheopenjusticeprinciplewassimplynotengagedatallifacasesettledbeforetrial 44. Capestressed,asIthinkwasnotinissuebetweentheparties,thatwheredocumentshadnotbeenreadtothecourtaspartofthedecisionmakingprocessthenperMoore-BickJ\u201cthecourtshouldonlydosoiftherearestronggroundsforthinkingthatitisnecessaryintheinterestsofjusticetodoso\u201d. 45. TheessenceofthepositionfollowedbyCapewassummarisedinPfizerHealthAbvSchwarzPharmaAg[2010]EWHC3236(Pat.)whereFloydJashethenwasconfirmedthat:(i)therewasnounfetteredrightofaccesstocourtrecords,(ii)therequirementforpermissionwasasafetyvalvetoallowaccesstodocumentswhichoughttobeprovided,(iii)thattheprincipleofopenjusticewasapowerfulreasonforallowingaccesswherethepurposeistomonitorthatjusticewasdone,particularlyasittakesplace,(iv)thatwherethepurposewasnotthemonitoringofjusticewasdone,thecourtshouldleaninfavourofdisclosureifalegitimateinterestcouldbeshownandthedocumentshadbeenreadbythecourtaspartofthedecisionmakingprocess,(v)thatwheretheprincipleofopenjusticeisnotengagedsuchaswheredocumentshavenotbeenreadatall,whatwasrequiredwerestronggroundsforthinkingthatdisclosurewasnecessaryintheinterestsofjustice,and(vi)thattheCPRprocedureforaccesstodocumentsshouldnotbeusedwherecopiesofdocumentsareavailablefrompublicsources. 46. MrFenwickQCnotedinhisskeletonthattheDianAOcasehadbeenfollowedinABCvY,butthatLewisonJashethenwashadobservedinABCvYthatitmayhavebeen\u201cputtingthepointalittletoohigh\u201dforMoore-BickJtohaveconcludedthattheprincipleofopenjusticewasnotengagedatallinacasewherethepurposeofseekingaccesswasnottoscrutinizethedoingofjustice.ItwashispositionhoweverthatthelatercaselawestablishedthatthenarrowerpositionofMoore-BickJwastobepreferred. 47. Thecasehavingsettled,andonthefootingthatDianAOwastobepreferredandshowedthattheprincipleofopenjusticedoesnotapplytoasettledcase,theappropriatestandardformetoapplytothiscasewasnotthegenerousapproachofleaninginfavourofaccessbutratherthehigherthresholdofrequiringMrDringtoshowstronggroundsforthinkingthatdisclosurewasnecessaryintheinterestsofjustice.Such couldnotbemadeoutinthiscaseandCape\u2019spositionwasthatdisclosureshouldberefused. TheimpactofGuardianNewsontheapproachtopublicaccess 48. MrFenwickreservedhisclient\u2019spositionastoapossiblefuturechallengeinahighercourttotheGuardianNewsdecision,whichisaCourtofAppealauthority.WhilstheacceptedthattheDianAOcasehastobereadinthelightofthatdecision,therewereaspectswhichhestressedassistedCape\u2019sanalysis.TheopeningparagraphofGuardianNewswasintermswhichweretotheeffectthatthepurposeofopenjusticewasthescrutinyofthecourts,whichwasconsistentwithDianAO. 49. IntermsofhowfarGuardianNewsoughttoassistme,Capestressedthefactthattheapplicantinthatinstancewasanewspaperandthecourtwasinfluencedbythereasonsforseekingthedocumentsnamelyaccesswhichthecourtconsideredtobeonamatterofgenuinepublicinterestandjournalisticpurpose.(Paras.76,82and87spokeintermsoftheseriousjournalisticpurposeandthecredibleevidenceputforwardastotheneedforaccesssoastoreportonamatterofpublicinterest).GoodreasonshadbeenputforwardbytheGuardian. 50. Inthecontextofthisapplicationtheroleof\u2018goodreasons\u2019wasonCape\u2019scaseparticularlyimportant.Iwastakentopara.85whereToulsonLJashethenwassaid \u201cIdonotthinkthatitissensibleorpracticaltolookforastandardformulafordetermininghowstrongthegroundsofoppositionneedtobeinordertooutweighthemeritsoftheapplication.Thecourthastocarryoutaproportionalityexercisewhichwillbefact-specific.Centraltothecourt\u2019sevaluationwillbethepurposeoftheopenjusticeprinciple,thepotentialvalueofthematerialinadvancingthatpurposeand,conversely,anyriskofharmwhichaccesstothedocumentsmaycausetothelegitimateinterestsofothers.\u201d 51. This,togetherwiththefactthatPD5Apara4.3expresslyrequiredanapplicationforaccesstospecifythedocumentorclassofdocumentssoughtandthegroundsfortheapplicationtogethermeantthatacourtfacedwithanapplicationofthissorthadtobeinpossessionofthenecessarygroundsandthenecessarylevelofspecificityofapplicationinordertocarryoutthebalancingexercisereferredtoinGuardianNews. ReadingCPR5.4C(2)inthelightofCPR31.22:notprovidingthepublicwithrightsgreaterthanthepartiesthemselves 52. CapeadvancedanargumentthatonemustlookattheprovisionsofCPR5.4C(2)alongsidetheinterpartesdisclosureprovisionsoftheCPRinrule 31.22 andalsoCPR5.4B. 53. Rule5.4Bappliestopartiestothelitigationandunderthatruletherewasnoblanketrighttocopiesofalldocumentsfromthecourtrecords.Ratherthereisaspecificlistofavailabledocumentsbeyondwhichanapplicationhastobemade.Itwassaidtobesignificantthatthoseinterpartesprovisionswhichsetoutalistofalloweddocumentsmarkedlydonotrefertogivingaccesstodisclosurematerial.TherulesastoaccessbetweenthepartiestodisclosurematerialareinCPR31.22: \u201c31.22 (1) Apartytowhomadocumenthasbeendisclosedmayusethedocumentonlyforthepurposeoftheproceedingsinwhichitisdisclosed,exceptwhere\u2013 (a) thedocumenthasbeenreadtoorbythecourt,orreferredto,atahearingwhichhasbeenheldinpublic; (b) thecourtgivespermission;or (c) thepartywhodisclosedthedocumentandthepersontowhomthedocumentbelongsagree. (2) Thecourtmaymakeanorderrestrictingorprohibitingtheuseofadocumentwhichhasbeendisclosed,evenwherethedocumenthasbeenreadtoorbythecourt,orreferredto,atahearingwhichhasbeenheldinpublic. (3) Anapplicationforsuchanordermaybemade\u2013 (a) byaparty;or (b) byanypersontowhomthedocumentbelongs.\u201d 54. InMarlwoodCommercialIncvKozenyandothers[2005]1WLR104theCourtofAppealperRixLJheldthatinorderforanordertobemadeunderrule31.22(1)(b),iethegrantofpermissionbythecourtfortheuseofdisclosuredocumentsotherthanforthepurposeoftheproceedingsinwhichtheyaredisclosed,\u201cspecialcircumstances\u201dareneeded.PerRixLJat43: \u201c…wherepermissionissoughtforreleasefromtheobligationimposedbytheruleagainstcollateraluseofdisclosedmaterial,itisfortheapplicanttomakegoodhiscase,cogentlyandpersuasively,thattherearespecialcircumstanceswhichjustifysuchpermissionanthatpermissionwillnotoccasioninjusticetothepersongivingdisclosure:seeCrestHomesplcvMarks[1987]AC829.\u201d 55. Clearly,saidMrFenwick,MrDringisnotapartyandhencecannotavailhimselfoftheinterpartiesrightstoapplyforpermissiontomakeuseofdisclosuredocumentsforacollateralpurpose.Hehadappliedonlyunderrule5.4C(2)whichwasasignificantfeaturesincewhereasrule31.22permittedapartytomakecollateraluseofdocumentsreferredtoincourt,rule5.4C(2)madenoreferencetodocumentsofthattypeatall.Thatrulemerelyreferredtoarighttoseekaccesstodocumentsfiledontherecordsofthecourt.Thatwassaidtobeasignificantrestrictiononthejurisdictionofthecourt.Alternativelyiftherewasjurisdictiontoallowaccesstodisclosuredocumentsatallthentheapplicationoughtatleasttomeetthestandardof\u2018specialcircumstances\u2019demandedinthecaseofanapplicationinterpartesunderrule31.22applyingtheMarlwooddicta.Itwouldbewrongforamemberofthepublicunconnectedwiththecasetohavegreaterrightstoaccessanduseofdisclosuredocumentsthanthepartiesthemselves. 56. MrFenwickreferredinsupportoftheabovetothejudgmentofKeithJinSayersv.SmithKlineBeechamplc[2007]EWHC1346atpara22(otherwiseknownastheMMR\/MRvaccinelitigation)whereKeithJsaid: \u201cThefirstreportofProfessorBustinandthereportsofProfessorSimmondsandProfessorRimawereneverreadorevertreatedashavingbeenreadbyme.TheSecretaryforHealthshouldthereforehaveaccesstothemonlyiftherearestronggroundsforthinkingthataccesstothemisnecessaryintheinterestsofjustice.Butthereisafurtherconsideration.Thereportsdrawonmaterialswhichweredisclosedbytheclaimants,namelythereportsonthedataprovidedbythetestscarriedoutonthespecimenstakenfromtheclaimantsandthecontrols.ItfollowsthattheSecretaryforHealthisseekingaccess,albeitindirectly,toinformationcontainedindocumentswhichweredisclosedbytheclaimants.Thatexplainswhy,whenMerckwantedtousetheevidenceofProfessorBustinandProfessorSimmondsintheproceedingsbroughtagainstitinPhiladelphia,itregardeditselfasrequiredbyrule31.22toseekthecourt\u2019spermissiontousethatevidence.Bythesametoken,theSecretaryforHealthacceptsthat,ifheistobeabletoobtaincopiesfromthecourtrecordsofthefirstreportofProfessorBustinandthereportsofProfessorSimmondsandProfessorRima,heshouldnotbeinabetterpositionthanthedefendantswouldhavebeeniftheyweremakinganapplicationunderrule31.22.\u201d Statusofthevariousdocumentsandbundles 57. Trialbundleswerenot,itwasargued,documents\u2018filed\u2019byaparty.Atrialbundlecouldbefiled,butitwasnot\u2018adocument\u2019.ReliancewasplacedonthefactthatCPR39.5providesthattheclaimant\u2018mustfileabundlecontainingthedocumentsrequired…\u2019,whichwastakentohighlightthedistinctionbetweenfilingabundle,ontheonehand,andfilingthedocumentswithinit,ontheother.Referencewasmadetothefactthatoftentheterm\u2018lodged\u2019wasusedratherthanfiled,albeittheruledoesstate\u2018filed\u2019inrelationtobundles.(InGio,whichwascited,itwassaidthatbundleswerenot\u2018filed\u2019,andthatwasreliedonbyMrFenwick(thoughInotethatGiowasdecidedundertheformercourtrulesandnottheCPR: therewasnoissuethatundertheCPRtherulesrequirethefilingofbundlestoday). 58. Astotheotherdocumentssuchasskeletonsandsubmissions,thoseweredocumentswhichhadbeendealtwith(inGio)underthecourt\u2019scommonlawjurisdictionratherthanasdocumentsfiledonthecourtrecord.Gioremainedgoodlawtotheeffectthatthereisnogeneralrulewhichenablesdocumentstobeobtainedbythepublictoseeandcopya documentmerelybecauseithasbeenreferredtoincourt.NestecSAvDualitLtd[2013]EWHC2737wadcitedasindicatingthatthecourttherehadrefusedaccesstodocumentscontainedinbundles(whetherunderCPR5.4C(2)orthecourt\u2019scommonlawjurisdiction)andhadtreatedGioasgoodlaw. 59. BundleDcouldnotbetreatedas\u2018filed\u2019inaccordancewithCPR39.5becausecourtfilesintheQueen\u2019sBenchDivisionareonpaperandnotelectronic,because\u2018filing\u2019requireddeliverytothecourtofficeandinanyeventCPR5.5providedthata\u2018practicedirectionmaymakeprovisionfordocumentstobefiledorsenttothecourt\u2019byelectronicmeansandtherewasnoprovisionforelectronicfilingofbundles.ThepositionthereforewasthatdocumentsintheQBDmustbefiledonpaperandbundleDthereforewasnotcapableofbeing\u2018documents\u2019filedontherecordsofthecourt. Lackoflegitimateinterestinthiscase 60. OnCape\u2019scaseMrDringhadnopersonalorprivateinterestinthematerialsought,suchashemightifhewereapotentialasbestoslitigant,asheaccepted,andsowhatremainedwasthereforeessentiallyamatterofwhetherthematerialwasdisclosableinthepublicinterest.Itwassaidthattheextentofthepublicinterestassertedbytheapplicantwas\u2018dubiousatbest\u2019. 61. InparticularCapedisagreedwiththesuggestionsinthewitnessstatementsfiledfortheapplicantthatTDN13wasbeing(byimplicationwrongly)acceptedbycourtsinthiscountryashavingbeenatypeof\u2018safetystandard\u2019andthattherewasaninterestinascertainingwhetherintruthTDN13merelysetalevelofexposureacceptabletotheasbestosindustrytosuititsownends.ThereweregeneralindicationsintheevidencethatdefendantsinunspecifiedcasesweredisputingliabilitybasedonTDN13beinganhistoricsafetystandard.Allthiswassaidtobewronginbothfactandlaw.IwastakentotheverywellknowncaseofWilliamsvUniversityofBirmingham[2011]EWCACiv.1242at5-6intheappendixtojudgment,perAikensLJ,wherehestated: \u201ctheFactoryInspectorateissued\u2018TechnicalDataNote13\u2019in March1970.Itwasentitled\u2018StandardsforAsbestosDust ConcentrationforUsewiththeAsbestosRegulations1969\u2019.Note13 containedguidanceonhowtheFactoryInspectoratewouldinterprethedefinitionof\u2018asbestosdust\u2019usedinreg2(3)ofthe1969Regulations,whichincluded\u2018dustconsistingoforcontainingasbestostosuchanextentasisliabletocausedangertothehealthofemployedpersons\u2019forthepurposesofdecidingwhenitshouldenforcethe1969Regulations.Insummary,wheretheaverageconcentrationofchrysotile,amositeandfibrousanthophylitewasrecordedasbelow2fibrespercubiccentimetreor0.1mg\/m3theinspectoratewouldnotseektoenforcethesubstantiveregulations\u201d. 62. Atpara.61ofthejudgmentAikensLJstated: \u201cInmyviewthebestguidetowhat,in1974,wasanacceptableandwhatwasanunacceptablelevelofexposuretoasbestosgenerallyisthatgivenintheFactoryInspectorate's\u2018TechnicalDataNote13\u2019ofMarch1970,inparticulartheguidancegivenaboutcrocidolite.CompareWardvTheRitzHotel(London)Ltd[1992]PIQRP315,wherethemajorityoftheCourtofAppealheldthatindecidingwhethertheriskofinjuryfromfallingoveralowlevelbalustradewasreasonablyforeseeable,ahotelshouldhavebeenawareofandbeguidedbyminimumheightsandsafetystandardspublishedbytheBritishStandard\u2019srecommendedstandardfortheheightofanybalustrade.TheUniversitywasentitledtorelyonrecognisedandestablishedguidelinessuchasthoseinNote13.Itistellingthatnoneofthemedicaloroccupationalhygieneexpertsconcludedthat,atthelevelofexposuretoasbestosfibresactuallyfoundbythejudge,theUniversityoughtreasonablytohaveforeseenthatMrWilliamswouldbeexposedtoanunacceptableriskofasbestosrelatedinjury.\u201d 63. InMrFenwick\u2019ssubmissionthen,TDN13wasthusnotasafetystandardbutguidanceastoathresholdforenforcementactionandtheWilliamscasewasmerelytreatingitasaguideastowhatwouldhavebeendone(quotingStokesvGuest[1968]1WLR1776at1783)by\u2018thereasonableandprudentemployer,takingpositivethoughtforthesafetyofhisworkersinthelightofwhatheknowsoroughttoknow\u2019. 64. TherewasnodoubtthattodaythedustexposurelevelsinTDN13didnotpreventdevelopmentofmesotheliomabutthatdidnotaffectthecriteriabywhichtheemployersofpastdecadesweretobejudged. 65. ItwasmisconceivedaccordingtoCape,forMsBainsactingforMrDringtoraisepossiblechallengetoTDN13whichthelawdidnotregardasasafetystandardinanyevent,andtheexerciseinthiscasewasa\u2018majorfishingexpedition\u2019inthehopethatsomethingmightturnup.Therewasnolegitimateinterestinthiscaseand,beyondthemisconceivedsuggestionthatTDN13wasbeingtreatedbycourtsasasafetystandardtherewasnootheridentifiedpurposebeyondmeregenerality. 66. ThetruepurposewasrevealedbytheconclusionofMsBains\u2019thirdwitnessstatementinwhichshestatedthattheapplicantwouldmakeavailablethedocumentstootherlawyers,academicsandthepublicingeneral.Thatwasnotalegitimateinterestforthepurposesofthecourt\u2019sbalancingexercise.Ifmerepublicationsufficedasalegitimateinterestthenallanapplicantwouldneedtodotosecureaccesstocourtrecordswastoassertthathewouldpublishit.Thatwoulddefeattheneedforrule5.4C(2). DecisionastoPart1 Theconstitutionalprincipleofaccessibilityofthecourts 67. InR(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51theSupremeCourtconsideredthelawfulnessofcertaincourtfeeswhichhadbeenimposedbytheLordChancellorinthesystemofEmploymentTribunalsinthiscountry.Questionsofwhetherthelevelofthosefeesunlawfullyinterferedwithaccesstojusticewereconsidered.FeesplaynoroleinthedecisionwhichImustmake,buttheobservationsoftheirLordshipsabouttheroleofthecourtsinprovidingaccesstojusticeanddevelopingthecommonlawarerelevant. 68. InUNISONatpara.65theCourtnoted(inthecontextofthefeeslegislationbutrelevantlytoanyprocessofthesortundertakenthere)that: \u201cIndeterminingtheextentofthepowerconferredontheLordChancellorbysection42(1)ofthe2007Act,thecourtmustconsidernotonlythetextofthatprovision,butalsotheconstitutionalprincipleswhichunderliethetext,[\u2026]\u201d 69. PerLordReedinUNISON(givingajudgmentwithwhichthewholecourtagreed): \u201c66. Theconstitutionalrightofaccesstothecourtsisinherentintheruleoflaw.Theimportanceoftheruleoflawisnotalwaysunderstood.Indicationsofalackofunderstandingincludetheassumptionthattheadministrationofjusticeismerelyapublicservicelikeanyother,thatcourtsandtribunalsareprovidersofservicestothe\u201cusers\u201dwhoappearbeforethem,andthattheprovisionofthoseservicesisofvalueonlytotheusersthemselvesandtothosewhoareremuneratedfortheirparticipationintheproceedings.[\u2026]\u201d. 68. [\u2026]CourtsexistinordertoensurethatthelawsmadebyParliament,andthecommonlawcreatedbythecourtsthemselves,areappliedandenforced.Thatroleincludesensuringthattheexecutivebranchofgovernmentcarriesoutitsfunctionsinaccordancewiththelaw.Inorderforthecourtstoperformthatrole,peoplemustinprinciplehaveunimpededaccesstothem.Withoutsuchaccess,lawsareliabletobecomeadeadletter,theworkdonebyParliamentmayberenderednugatory,andthedemocraticelectionofMembersofParliamentmaybecomeameaninglesscharade.Thatiswhythecourtsdonotmerelyprovideapublicservicelikeanyother. 69. Accesstothecourtsisnot,therefore,ofvalueonlytotheparticularindividualsinvolved.Thatismostobviouslytrueofcaseswhichestablishprinciplesofgeneralimportance.[\u2026]itisnotalwaysdesirablethatclaimsshouldbesettled:it Referring to the example of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. resolvedapointofgenuineuncertaintyastotheinterpretationofthelegislationgoverningequalpay,whichwasofgeneralimportance,andonwhichanauthoritativerulingwasrequired. 70. Everydayinthecourtsandtribunalsofthiscountry,thenamesofpeoplewhobroughtcasesinthepastliveonasshorthandforthelegalrulesandprincipleswhichtheircasesestablished.Theircasesformthebasisoftheadvicegiventothosewhosecasesarenowbeforethecourts,orwhoneedtobeadvisedastothebasisonwhichtheirclaimmightfairlybesettled,orwhoneedtobeadvisedthattheircaseishopeless.[\u2026] 71. Butthevaluetosocietyoftherightofaccesstothecourtsisnotconfinedtocasesinwhichthecourtsdecidequestionsofgeneralimportance.Peopleandbusinessesneedtoknow,ontheonehand,thattheywillbeabletoenforcetheirrightsiftheyhavetodoso,and,ontheotherhand,thatiftheyfailtomeettheirobligations,thereislikelytobearemedyagainstthem.Itisthatknowledgewhichunderpinseverydayeconomicandsocialrelations.Thatisso,notwithstandingthatjudicialenforcementofthelawisnotusuallynecessary,andnotwithstandingthattheresolutionofdisputesbyothermethodsisoftendesirable. 72. [\u2026]althoughitisoftendesirablethatclaimsarisingoutofallegedbreachesofemploymentrightsshouldberesolvedbynegotiationormediation,thoseprocedurescanonlyworkfairlyandproperlyiftheyarebackedupbytheknowledgeonbothsidesthatafairandjustsystemofadjudicationwillbeavailableiftheyfail.Otherwise,thepartyinthestrongerbargainingpositionwillalwaysprevail.\u201d 70. ThisapplicationdoesnotconcerndirectaccesstoahearinginthecourtsbyMrDring,inthesenseinwhichitwasconsideredinUNISON.Hehasnocasewhichheispursuingorwishestopursueanddoesnotanticipatebringingone.Ratherhisapplicationconcernshis(andthepublic\u2019s)rightsofaccesstodocumentsconcerningthecasesoflitigantswhoseclaimshavealreadybeenbeforethecourtandheardinpublic. 71. ItisclearfromtheevidencebeforemeinthewitnessstatementsofMrDringandhissolicitorthatthepurposeofhisapplicationincludesobtainingthedocumentsforsuchmattersasmakingitavailablepublicly,causingorpromotingacademicconsiderationanddiscussionofthatmaterialinrelevantfieldsofstudy,and(byensuringthematerialis availabletoinformthemandtheiradvisersandtobeusedincourtifappropriate)facilitatingcurrentorfuturecaseswhichrelatetoasbestosexposureinthecourts.Itisself-evidentthatthepurposeofseekingdisclosureisnotthescrutinyofthedoingofjusticeduringthecurrencyofthetrialbecausethetrialwasoverbeforetheapplicationwasmade. 72. MrDringisanofficerandmemberoftheAsbestosVictimsSupportGroupsForum(UK)andIsetoutinmydecisionin[2017]EWHC2103(QB)atparas.46-47extractsfromsomeoftheevidencebeforemewhichdealwiththenatureofthatgroupandtheusesofthematerialanticipatedbyMrDring.Irefertothatjudgmentsoasnottooverburdenthisjudgmentwithquotation. Theopenjusticeprinciple 73. Theabilityofthepublictoaccessrecordsofcourtproceedings(subjectalwaystothecontrolofthecourtinanappropriatecasewherejusticewouldbedefeatedorimpairedbydisclosure Ishallreturntothisaspectbelow. )engagesconstitutionalnotionsofopenaccesstothecourtsinwayswhicharerelevantlysimilartobutnotidenticalwiththedirectformofaccesstocourtconsideredinUNISON.Inparticular: (i) TherightofaccesstocourtconsideredinUNISONisinherentintheruleoflaw. (ii) Itseemstomethatopennessofjustice,ofthesortconsideredherefostersthescrutinyofthecourtsbythepublic,protectstheintegrityofthecourtprocessandassiststhedevelopmentofthelawandlegalknowledge.Ittherebysupportsthepracticaleffectivenessoftherightofaccesstocourt. (iii) Thecourtsdonotmerelyprovideapublicservicetothe\u2018users\u2019whoappearbeforethem.Rather,previouscasesformthebasisoftheadvicegiventothosewhosecasesarenowbeforethecourts,orwhoneedtobeadvisedastothebasisonwhichtheirclaimmightfairlybesettled,orwhoneedtobeadvisedthattheircaseishopeless. (iv) Althoughitisoftendesirablethatclaimsarisingoutofallegedbreachesofthelawshouldberesolvedbynegotiationormediation,thoseprocedures canonlyworkfairlyandproperlyiftheyarebackedupbytheknowledgeonbothsidesthatafairandjustsystemofadjudicationwillbeavailableiftheyfail. 74. Accesstoacourt,beingnotmerelytheprovisionofaserviceto\u2018users\u2019asiftheyareconsumersofaproductakintothedispensingofstamps,entailsthatthepartiessubmittingtothejurisdictiondonothavefullsovereigntytodeterminesimplybyprivateagreementbetweenthemselvestheextenttowhichthepublicmaybemadeawareofanyaspectoftheproceedingsbeforethecourt. 75. Thisbringswithitatleastasadefaultpositionaninherentandperfectlyforeseeablepossibilitythatmaterialdeployedincourtbytheparties,orfiledupontherecordsofthecourtaspartofitsprocess,willformpartofthecorpusofmaterialwhichmaybedeployedinothercases,usedforthepurposesoflegaladvice,beingacademicallyorjournalisticallydiscussed,orconsideredbyParliament.ThusinChanUSeek(supra.)at31: \u201c\u2026thecourtsfavourdisclosureratherthanwithholdingofmaterialsifthematerialshavefeaturedinproceedingsinopencourt\u2026\u201dandPerToulsonLJinR(GuardianNews)vWestminsterMagistrates\u2019Court(supra.)at85: \u201cInacasewheredocumentshavebeenplacedbeforeajudgeandreferredtointhecourseofproceedings,inmyjudgmentthedefaultpositionshouldbethataccessshouldbepermittedontheopenjusticeprinciple\u201d 76. TheearliercasessuchasGio(priortotheCPR)andDianAOandwhicharemoreconservativeintheirapproachtodisclosureofcourtdocumentsmustbereadinthelightofthedevelopmentofthelawinGuardianNews. 77. InparticularoneseesaclearprogressionoftheviewtakenbythecourtsinthemorerecenteraifoneexaminesthejudicialprogressionofthoughtstartingatGioat995F,doubtedtobegoodlawinthepostGuardianNewserainNABvSercoat29andendingmostrecentlyinBlueandAshleyatpara10withLeggattJ\u2019sstatementofthebreadthofthecommonlawjurisdictiontoorderdisclosureofserveddocuments.Themessagewhichemergesfromtheauthoritiesisthatthecommonlawdiscretionisawideonebutitsexerciseiscasespecific.Therulesregulateitsexercisebutdonotlimitthosepowers. 78. \u2018Knowledge\u2019thatthereisafairandjustsystemofadjudicationavailableifAlternativeDisputeResolutionfails,whichwasoneofthebenefitsofopenaccesstothecourtsreferredtoinUNISONwouldbeineffectiveifitwasmerelyanarticleoffaithamonglawyersorthosewhohavehadcourtexperience.Theprocessandoperationofthecourt,aswellasthesubstanceofanydecisionsandtheirlegalbasismustbeaccessibleifknowledgeofthefairnessofthesystemistoberealandnotillusory. 79. Summinguptherefore: (1) CPR5.4Cistheprimarymeansbywhichthecourt\u2019scommonlawpowertoallowaccesstodocumentstothepublicfromthecourtrecordisadministeredbutthecommonlawisthemasterandnottheservantoftherules. (2) WheredocumentsarefiledontherecordofthecourtthentheyfallwithinthescopeofCPR5.4C(2).(Ifdocumentsareremovedfromcourt,BlueandAshleyvTimesNewspapersLtd[2017]EWHC1553(Comm.)mayprovideabasisforsayingthatthecourtcanrequirethemtobereturnedbutinthisinstancethedocumentshadnotinfactbeenremovedfromcourt). (3) Documentsfiledontherecordofthecourtandwhicharereadortreatedasreadincourtaresubjecttoadefaultpositioninfavouroftheprincipleofopenjusticeiftheapplicanthasalegitimateinterest. (4) Wheretheapplicanthasalegitimateinterestthenthecourtmuststillconsiderthebalancingexerciseinrelationtoanyharmtootherpartieslegitimateinterestswhendecidingwhethertoallowaccess. (5) Documentsontherecordsofthecourtwhicharenotreadortreatedasreadaresubjecttoamorestringenttestnamelythattheremustbestronggroundsforthinkingthataccessisnecessaryintheinterestsofjustice. (6) Serveddocumentsnotontherecordsofthecourtdonotfallwithinrule 5.4Cbutmaybedisclosedunderthecourt\u2019scommonlawpowers.GioandNestecsupportanarrowapproachtoexercisingthatjurisdictionwheredocumentsaresoughtwhichfalloutsiderule5.4C.BlueandAshleydrawsthescopeofthepowerswidelybutalsoapproachestheirexercisecautiously. Istheprincipleofopenjusticeengagedatallincaseswhichsettlebeforejudgment? 80. IdonotacceptthatthecorrectinterpretationofDianAOisthatputforwardbyCapenamelythattheopenjusticeprincipleisnotengagedwhereacasehassettledbeforejudgment,andnortoIunderstandLewisonJtohavebeenaffirmingsuchaninterpretationofDianAOintheABCvYcase.TofollowwhyItakethatviewImustconsiderbrieflythefactsofDianAOandthenturntospecificallywhatMoore-BickJsaid. 81. TheapplicationinDianAOconcernedanapplicationforaccesstothecourtfileinacasewhichhadsettled.Itappearsfromthereportthatthecasedidnotproceedasfarasinthecasebeforeme(thejudgenotesatpara.31thatthejudicialfunctionhadbeenasheputsit\u2018verylimited\u2019inthatcase).Theapplicantthereinitiallysoughtaccesstoalldocumentsinthecourtfile.Ineednotgointothefulldetailofthecourt\u2019sdiscussionofthevariousdocumentsinthecasebutitisofnotethatthecourtinDianAOwasfacedspecificallywithtwotypesofdocumentnamely(a)thosewhichhadbeenused,atleasttosomeextentorother,aspartofthejudicialprocessonforexampleasecurityforcostsapplicationandaninjunctionapplication,and(b)affidavitswhichhadbeenfiledaspartofasummaryjudgmentapplicationwhichhadbeencompromisedbywayofunconditionalleavetodefend,andwhichhadnotultimatelybeenthroughanytypeofjudicialconsideration. 82. Thecourtallowedaccesstothedocumentswhichhadplayedaroleinjudicialprocess,butrefusedaccesstotheaffidavitsfortheabortivesummaryjudgmentapplication. 83. AgainstthatbackdroponethenlookscarefullyatthedictareliedonbyCapeinsupportofthepropositionthattheopenjusticeprincipledoesnotapplytoasettledcase,andlookstoseewhetherwhatissaidinthatcaseactuallymakesouttheassertionbyCapeinthefootnotetopara.13ofitsskeletonthatinDianAOtherewasadictumthat\u201casettledcasedoesnotengagetheprincipleofopenjustice\u201d. 84. Idonotseethatitisatenablepropositionthatwhenproperlyread,Moore-BickJwasmakingsuchanassertion.Atpara.30ofDianAOthecourtsaidthattheprincipleofopenjusticewas: \u201cprimarilyconcernedwithmonitoringthedecision-makingprocessasittakesplace,notwithreviewingtheprocesslongaftertheevent.\u201d Thecourtthenobservedthattheclaimhadendedbycompromisein1996(ie,longbeforetheapplicationforaccess)andstatedat31thattheapplicanthad: \u201cnointerestintheperformanceofthejudicialfunctioninthatcase…Itsimplyseekspermissiontousethecourtfileasasourceofusefulinformationtoassistitinotherlitigation.Thatdoesnotinmyviewengagetheprincipleofopenjustice.\u201dThejudgethen(at56-57)foundthat: \u201cInthepresentcase,althoughthe[applicant]isnotinterestedinwhetherjusticewasproperlyadministeredintheDiancase,Ithinkitdoeshavealegitimateinterestinobtainingaccesstodocumentsonthecourtrecordinsofarastheycontaininformationthatmayhaveadirectbearingontheissuesthatarisein[theotherlitigationitwasinvolvedin].Ididnotacceptthesubmissionthatthelinkistootenuous…Moreover,Ithinkthatinthecaseofdocumentsthatwerereadbythecourtinaspartofthedecision-makingprocess,thecourtoughtgenerallytoleaninfavourofallowingaccessinaccordancewiththeprincipleofopenjusticeascurrentlyunderstood\u201d 85. ItiscleartomethatthedictastatedabovearenotconsistentwithaninterpretationofjudgmentinDianAOthatasettledcasedoesnotengagetheprincipleofopenness.Ratherthemeaningconveyedwasthat: (i) ifthepurposeofaccessisnottoscrutinisethejudicialprocessasitistakingplacebutissomeotherreasonthentheprincipleofopenaccessisnotforthatreasonengagedand (ii) iftheapplicanthasalegitimateinterestwhichisnottootenuous,andthedocumentshavebeenreadincourt,thenthecourtleansinfavourofaccess\u201cinaccordancewiththeprincipleofopenjustice\u201dtoquotethespecificwordsofMoore-BickJagain. 86. ThereisnorealisticreadingoftheabovequotedpassageswhichleadstotheconclusionthatMoore-BickJwasoftheviewthatasettledcasedoesnotengagetheprincipleatall,unlessoneispreparedtoignorethelastelevenwordsoftheabovequotation. 87. Proceedingfurther,onecanthenseethatthesettingofahigherthresholdforthesummaryjudgmentdocumentsinDianAOwhereby,suchdocumentsnothavingbeenreadbythecourtaspartofthedecisionmakingprocess,theyweresubjecttothe\u2018stronggrounds\u2019testwasareferencetothefactssetout(atpara.47ofhisjudgment)inwhichhemakesitclearthatthesummaryjudgmentaffidavitshadmerelybeenfiledandneverreadbythecourtbecausetheapplicationwascompromisedbeforeanyhearingorjudicialconsiderationtookplace. 88. IacceptthatthefactreferredtobyCapethatTheLawDebentureTrustcaseciteddidnotconcerntherulewithwhichIamnowconcernedweakenssomewhattheforceofargumentbyMrWeirthatitisauthoritythatsettlementoutofcourtdoesengagestheprincipleofopenjusticeinanapplicationsuchasthis.ButwithduerespecttotheCapeargumentandtoMrFenwickitseemstomethattheNABvSercocaseisonpoint,didconcernthetypeofapplicationbeforemeandwasclear,perBeanJat30that\u201cThepublicinterestisnotconfinedtocaseswherethecourthasgivenjudgmentanditissoughttoseewhethertheunderlyingdocumentsprovidefurtherilluminationofthejudgment.Itmaybejustassignificanttodiscoverwhyacasesettled.\u201d 89. ThatBeanJinNABvSercowasreferringtothepublicinterestinopenjustice,specifically,andnotmerelythepublicinterestinaverygeneralsenseisclearfromtheopeningoftheverynextparagraphofthatjudgmentinwhichheconfirmsthat\u201cIhaveconsideredwhetherthepublicinterestinopenjusticeisoutweighedinthiscasebytheriskofharmtothelegitimateinterestsofothers.\u201d 90. Theprincipleofopenjusticeisengagednotwithstandingthatacasesettlesbeforejudgment.Itappliestodocumentswhichhavebeenreadtoorbythecourt,treatedassoread,orwhich(usingtheformulationinChanUSeek)\u201chavefeaturedin\u201dtheproceedings Whichdocumentswerefiledontherecordsofthecourtinthiscase? 91. InthiscasethemaingroupofdocumentswithwhichIamconcernedarethosemarkedasBundlesAtoF.\u2018Bundle\u2019Dwasprovidedsolelyinelectronicformviaadocumentmanagementsystemandisalargerepositoryofdiscloseddocuments.TheotherbundleswereonpaperandareaselectedsetofmaterialwhichwasgraduallyexpandedduringthetrialasdocumentswhichhadbeenexpresslyreferredtoweremovedacrossfromDtothepaperbundles,enablingacumulativelycompletedpapercorebundleforthejudgebytheendofthecase(whilststillensuringthejudgehadalldocumentsinthecase,viabundleD,ifrequiredtobedeployed).MrWeir\u2019scasewasthatallofthosefilesAtoFwerethetrialbundles,filedassuch,andthattherecouldbenoquestionthat\u2018BundleD\u2019wasanythingotherthanapartofthetrialbundlesandthereforewaspartofthe\u2018recordsofthecourt\u2019attrialjustaswerethepaperfiles. 92. Inadditiontothepaperbundles,therewereatcourtasetofdailytranscriptsoftrialwhichhadbeengiventothejudge,andtheusualmiscellaneousdocumentsgeneratedduringthecaseanddeployedbeforethejudgesuchaswrittensubmissionsetc. 93. Itdoesnotappearthat(ashadbeenthoughttobethecasewhentheexparteapplicationwasmadetomeforthere-filingofthebundlesetc)anyrelevantdocumentsformingthesubjectofthisapplicationhadbeenremovedfromcourtasatthetimetheapplicationwasmade. 94. TheCPRrequire,inrule39.5expressly,thatbundlesfortrialbe\u2018filed\u2019unlessthecourtordersotherwise.Theexpressionisnot\u2018lodged\u2019or\u2018delivered\u2019orsomeothervariant,but\u2018filed\u2019.OtherpartsoftheCPR,notablypartsofPD5Ausetermsincluding\u2018filed,lodgedorheld\u2019atthecourt,butnottheruleastobundles. 95. NeithermyselfasthemanagingmasternorPickenJorderedotherwiseinrelationtothefilingofbundles.ThecaselawalreadycitedabovesuchasNABvSercoamplyestablishesthatbundleswhichhavebeenfiledarepartoftherecordsofthecourt.Theyfallwithinthecourt\u2019sjurisdictioninprincipleastoallowingaccessaccordingly.Cape\u2019sargumentthatbecausetheCPRrefersto\u2018bundles\u2019beingfiled,thatdoesnotimplythatthedocumentsinthemarefiled.Thatseemstomeanunrealisticapproach:bundlesaresimplycollectionsofdocumentsandwhenabundleisfilednecessarilysoarethedocumentswithinit. 96. AsregardsbundleD,thatdifferedfromtheothersinthatitwasapurelydigitalbundle. 97. CapewasincorrecttoassertthattheQBDdoesnotkeepelectroniccourtfiles.Itdoesdoso,aswellasfilesonpaper,butitiscorrectthatthesysteminuseelectronicallyisaverybasicrecordofcaseprogressionandeventsmaintainedbystaff. 98. HoweverCapeiscorrecttoassertthat\u2018bundleD\u2019doesnotamounttoabundlefiledatcourt.ItisnotablethatPD5.4Aat2.2statesthat\u201c(1)Unlessthenatureofthedocumentrendersitimpracticable,beonA4paperofdurablequalityhavingamargin,notlessthan3.5centimetreswide,\u201d.Thatandotherprovisionsimplythatthebasicpositionastofilingatcourtis,absentaPracticeDirectioninaccordancewithrule5.5,apaperexercise. 99. PracticeDirection5Ballowsdocumentstobesent,insomecircumstances,byemail.ItmakesnoprovisionforfilingofdocumentsintheQBDelectronically.PracticeDirection51O,inforcefrom16November2015doesmakeprovisionforfilingofdocumentselectronically(thoughevenitrequirespaperbundlestobefiledaswellaselectronicones),butthatPDappliesonlyto\u201cTheRollsBuildingJurisdictions\u201d,andthiscasewasnotproceedingunderoneofthosejurisdictions. 100. \u2018BundleD\u2019wasmadeavailableasadigitalresourceincourtmuchasifaharddrivehadbeenretainedonthesolicitors\u2019rowincourtsothatdocumentscouldbeextractedfromit,butinmyjudgmentonecannotconcludethatbundleDwasfiled. 101. Apartfromthebundles,therewereotherdocumentsdeployedincourtsuchasskeletons,writtensubmissionsandtranscriptsonadailybasis.Clearlythosewereplacedbeforethejudgeandreferredto. 102. Thereisalegitimatequestionwhetherallofthoseweretechnically\u2018filed\u2019ornot,andwhetherhandingadocumenttoajudgedirectlyorviastaffincourtisnecessarilyalwaysthesamethingasfilingit.Theauthoritiesgenerallyappeartotreatsubmissionsandskeletonsas permittedtobedisclosedunderthecommonlawjurisdictionratherthanasbeingfiledandtriggeringrule5.4C. 103. Inthisinstancethedocumentsotherthanthebundleswereretainedincourtattheendoftrialandheldtogetherwiththecourtfiles,ratherthan,forexample,beinglookedatandhandedbacktotheadvocates,andinmyjudgmentthatsufficesintheparticularcircumstancesofthiscasetocausethemtohavebecomedocumentsfiledontherecordsofthecourtatleastforsolongastheyareatcourt. 104. IfIamwrong,thenthedocumentsotherthanthoseinthebundlesfallwithinthecourt\u2019sgeneraldiscretionastoaccessandIwouldreachnodifferentconclusionastothemthanIdobelowonthebasisthattheywere(andare)partoftherecordsofthecourt. 105. CapecorrectlyacceptedinanyeventthatIcandirectthatanydocumentnotfiled,beplacedonthecourtfileandIreturntothatattheveryendofthisjudgment. Whetherfileddocumentshavebeensufficientlyreadortreatedasreadbythejudgesoastogiverisetoastartingpointofopenness? ThebundlesotherthanbundleD 106. MrWeirQCcorrectlyarguedthatfollowingSmithklineBeechamBiologicalsSAvConnaughtLaboratoriesInc[1999]4AllER498509c-eandBaringsplcvCoopersandLybrand[2000]1WLR2353at52-52,onehastotakeintoaccountthatmodernpracticeencouragestheprereadingofbundlesbyjudges. 107. InotealsothatinBaringsat51thefollowingpassagefromthejudgmentofLordWoolfMRhighlightstheexpectationwhichtherewasatthattimethatthecomingintoforceoftheHumanRightsAct1998andtheCPRwouldhavecertaineffectsontheapproachtodisclosureofcourtdocuments: \u201cThetensionbetweentheneedforapublichearingofcourtproceedingsandwhathappensinpracticeinthecourtswillbeincreasedwhentheHumanRightsAct1998comesintoforceandthecourtswillbeunderanobligationtocomplywitharticle6.Already,thiscourthasrecognisedtheneedtogive\u201cappropriateweighttobothefficiencyandopennessofjustice\u201dinthejudgmentofthecourtgivenbyLordBinghamofCornhillCJinSmithklineBeechamBiologicalsSAvConnaughtLaboratoriesInc.[\u2026]AsLordBinghamCJrecognised,it\u201cmaybenecessary,withsuitablesafeguards,toavoidtoowideagapbetweenwhathasintheory,andwhathasinpractice,passedintothepublicdomain.\u201dSincetheCivilProcedureRulescameintoforceitisimportanttoreducethegapsincejudgeswillbeincreasinglyperformingtheirroleoutofcourtaswellasincourt.\u201d 108. Inthisinstancethebundlesonpaperweredeployedincourtandplacedbeforethejudgeincludingafterheretiredtoconsiderhisdecision.TheythereforenotonlyformedpartoftherecordsofthecourtbutIconsiderthatbyhavingbeenplacedbeforethejudgeandreliedonbytheparties,theyweresubjecttowhatLordJusticeToulsonreferredtoasthe\u2018defaultposition\u2019thataccessshouldbegivenontheopenjusticeprinciple,inR(GuardianNews)vWestminsterMagistrates\u2019Courtat85.CasessuchasSayersareexamplesoftheapproachtotake. 109. ThesamereasoningappliestothedocumentsotherthanbundleDnamelythesubmissions,skeletonsandtranscriptsprovidedtothejudge. BundleD 110. LeavingasidethequestionwhichIhaveansweredinthenegativeaboveastowhetherbundleDwas\u2018filed\u2019,referringbacktothedefaultpositionsetoutbyToulsonLJinR(GuardianNews)vWestminsterMagistrates\u2019Court,theplacingofdocumentsbeforeajudgeisonerelevantaspectofwhetherthedefaultpositionofopennessapplies.TheotheraspectreferredtobyToulsonLJatpara85ofhisjudgmentisthatofwhetheradocumentwasreferredto,havingbeenplacedbeforethejudge. 111. InthecaseofbundleDthatisproblematicbecausetheintentionofthepartiesinproducingbundleDatallwasthatwheredocumentswerereferredtotheywouldbecopiedacrosstoformpartoftheother,paper,bundlesonpaper.ThedocumentsinbundleD(savewheretheywerethesameasintheotherbundles)werebydefinitiondocumentswhich thejudgehadnotbeeninvitedtoconsider,asIunderstandtheevidencefromCapeastohowthedocumentbundleswereused. 112. MrWeirQCsubmittedtomethatifCapecouldshowthatanyofthedocumentsinbundleDwerenotreadbythejudgethenthecourtshouldadoptthemorestringenttestsetoutinDianAOnamelythatthecourtshouldnotallowaccessunlesstherearestronggroundsforthinkingthatitisnecessaryintheinterestsofjusticetodoso. 113. IdonotagreethatsuchaspecificapproachisnecessaryinthecaseofbundleD.AbsenthumanerrorintransferringorcopingdocumentsacrossfrombundleDtotheotherbundlesonpaper,theresidueofthecontentsofbundleDwerematerialsthatthejudgehadnotbeenaskedtouse,hadnotbeenreferredtoandtowhich,ifwishingtotakethemintoaccount,hewoulddoubtlesshavecomebacktoalertthepartiesandasktohearargumentaboutthemsuchthattheywouldthenbereferredtoandtreatedasread. 114. ItseemstomethatwithoutpiercingtheveilofthejudicialretiringroomonecanseereadilythatbundleDdidnotformpartofthematerialplacedbeforethejudgeforthepurposeofhisdecision.Itwasnotmaterialwhichfeaturedinthedecision-makingprocessorwasreadortreatedasreadbythecourt. 115. ThereforetheresidueofbundleDnotalreadycontainedinthepaperbundlesismaterialwhichfallsoutsidethescopeofthedefaultprincipleofopenness.Ishallmakeprovisionbelowfordealingwithanystraydocumentswhichfailedtobecopiedacrosstothepaperfilesbutwhichwerereferredto. 116. IntermsofthepotentialforanorderfordisclosureofbundleDunderthecommonlawjurisdictionofthecourt,Iconsiderthatthosepowersareinprincipleavailable(firstly)becauseitwastechnicallyplacedbeforethejudgeinthesensethatitwasavailableusingthedocumentmanagementsystemand(secondly)followingBlueandAshleyperLeggattJat10thecourt\u2019spowersdoextendinprincipletoorderingdisclosureofserveddocumentstothepublicevenifnotfiledatcourt.IdiscussBlueandAshleyfurtherinPart2ofthisjudgmentundertheBalancingexercise. Theusetowhichthedocumentswillbeputandwhetherthereisalegitimateinterestinaccessinthiscase 117. FollowingGioandABCvYreferredtoinargument,onceadocumenthasbeensufficientlydeployedincourttogiverisetothestartingpointofopenness,thereisstillaneedfortheapplicanttoshowalegitimateinterest(andthereaftertoconsiderthe\u2018balancingexercise\u2019inrelationtopossibleharmfuleffectstoothers\u2019legitimateinterests). 118. Alegitimateinterestcanfromthoseauthoritiesincludeacademicinterest,usebyapressuregrouporuseinsomejournalisticformandindeedanynumberofotheruseswhichareulterior(inthepropersenseofthatword)withoutbeingillegitimate.Onemightdecideforexamplethatifamemberofthepublicsoughtaccesstodocumentsforthepurposesoffraudorofmakingundueuseofcourtresourcestheremaybenosuchlegitimateinterestbutsuchisnotthecasehere. 119. InVariousClaimantsvNewsGroupitisfairtosaythatVosJadoptedarobustapproachwhereitwasallegedthatdisclosurewouldriskprejudicingacriminaltrial,andthatisveryobviouslyacasewherethecourtmusttreadcarefully.Heindicatedatpara.66thatthecourtmustlookattheusestowhichthedocumentswouldbeputandtheextenttowhichtheyweretrulyrequiredtounderstandandreporttheproceedings. 120. Iacceptthebasicpointthatthecourtmustevaluatewhetherthereisalegitimateinterest.Idonotagree(ifsuchwasintendedbyVosJinVariousClaimantsvNewsGroup,whichIdoubt)thatlegitimateinterestislimitedtowhetherdocumentsarerequiredonlytounderstandandreportproceedings.Itisappropriatetoconsiderthataspect,butthescopeoflegitimacyofinterestisabroadoneillustratedbyGioandbyABCvY. 121. CapeattackedtheideathatenablingthedetailedexaminationoftheoriginsofTDN13anditsbasisatthetimeitwascreatedwasanaimwhichwaslegitimate,becausetheideaputforwardonbehalfoftheapplicantthatTDN13hasbeentreatedasa\u2018safetystandard\u2019inasbestoslitigationwaslackinginlegalsubstance.BasedonCape\u2019sinterpretationofWilliamsvBirmingham,itwassaidtobethecasethatthecourthadmerelytreatedTDN13asguidance.Moreovertheapproachtherewas andremainedgoodlawandhadforexamplebeenappliedinSmith(ExecutoroftheEstateofSmith,deceased)vPortswoodHouseLtd[2016]EWHC939. 122. AstoTDN13withduerespecttoCape,thequestionwhetherTDN13wasasafetystandard,wasguidance,orwasinsomesenseabogusdocumentcreatedbyindustryactinginitsownself-interestorsomethingelseentirely,isnotamatterIneeddelveintobeyondbeingsatisfiedthatthereisarealdebate,havingpublicinterest,astothevalidityandoriginsofTDN13. 123. IneednotdetermineanythingaboutTDN13inthisjudgmentotherthanthatitisthesubjectofalegitimatedesirebyMrDringtofurtherthepublicknowledgeandconsiderationofhowitcameaboutandhowitshouldbeapproachedinlaw,includingpotentiallyinfutureclaimsinvolvingCapeitself. 124. Inthisinstancetheevidence,whichIaccept,isthatMrDringactsforagroupwhichprovideshelpandsupporttoasbestosvictims.Itsomerespectsitisalsoapressuregroupandisinvolvedinlobbyingandinpromotingasbestosknowledgeandsafety.Thosearelegitimateactivitiesandprovidelegitimateinterest.Theevidencebeforemedemonstratesthattheintendeduseistoenablehimandtheforumofwhichheisanofficer,to: \u2022 makethematerialpubliclyavailable, \u2022 bymakingitavailabletopromoteacademicconsiderationastothescienceandhistoryofasbestosandasbestoluxexposureandproduction, \u2022 improvetheunderstandingofthegenesisandlegitimacyofTDN13andanyindustrylobbyingleadingtoitinthe1960sand1970s. \u2022 understandtheindustrialhistoryofCapeanditsdevelopmentofknowledgeofasbestossafety \u2022 clarifytheextenttowhichCapeisorisnotresponsibleforproductsafetyissuesarisingfromthehandlingofasbestoluxboards \u2022 toassistcourtclaimsandtheprovisionofadvicetoasbestosdiseasesufferers. 125. Thosearelegitimateaims.IdoacceptthatifanapplicantunderCPR5.2C(2)merelyassertedthathewantedaccesstodocumentssothathecouldpublishthem,andgavenobasisfortheimportanceoreffectsofsodoingorhismotives,itwouldnotinthatbareformbepersuasive.TothatextentIacceptCape\u2019spositionthatanassertionofamereintentiontopublishthematerialobtainedwould,ifitsufficedwithoutmoreparticularity,essentiallydepriverule5.4C(2)ofmuchofitspurpose.Butthatisnotthepositionhere.Itisclearfromtheevidencewhattheintendeduseisandwhy. Part2\u2013Thestandingoftheapplicant,thespecificityoftheapplicationandthebalancingexercise Standingoftheapplicant 126. Capesubmittedthatthisapplicationwasanullityandhadtobedismissed.TheapplicationhadbeenissuedoriginallyinanurgentexpartebasisandhadnamedtheForumastheapplicant.TheForumhadnolegalpersonality. 127. Whereanapplicationismadeurgently,itisunsurprisingthatasituationcouldarisewherecounselproceeded,aswasthecase,onthebasisthathebelievedtheForumtohavealegalpersonality.ImustaskmyselfwhethertheeffectoftheForumhavingbeennamedinerrorastheapplicantmeansthatthisapplicationmustbedismissed.Suchwouldbegrosslydisproportionate.MrDringwassubstitutedasapplicantandtheirregularitywascured.Thepropercourseisformetodecidetheapplicationonthatbasis. Specificityoftheapplication 128. Iconsiderthatthedegreeofspecificitywhichispossibleinanapplicationunderrule5.4Cmustnecessarilybelimitedinpracticaltermsbythefactthatwithoutseeingthedocumentsinthefirstplacethebestthatcanbeexpectedsoastoassistthecourtisthatgeneralcategoriesofdocumentsbeidentifiedunlessthereisaparticularidentifieddocumentwhichknownaboutandissought.ThePracticeDirection envisagesthatclassesofdocumentsshouldbeidentifiedanddoesnotexpectmorethanthat. 129. Inthiscaseatalatestagetheapplicants,challengedbytherespondentstobemorespecific,andIthinkattemptingtohelp,providedadetailedlistofdocuments.Thatapproachisundesirablewhere,aswasthecase,theidentificationofthedocumentsbasedonthatlistwouldhaverequiredinsightintothemindsoftheparties.Askingfor\u2018allwitnessstatements\u2019wouldbeaproperrequestinformalbeitbroad,butnotarequestsuchas\u2018allmaterialreliedonbytheClaimanttoestablishaparticularproposition\u2019whichtomymindconfusesthistypeofaccessapplicationwithaspeciesofdisclosureapplicationasbetweenpartiestoaclaimandlackspracticalprecisionasregardsthecourt\u2019sabilitytoknowwhatdocumentsareintended. 130. Cape\u2019spositionwasthattheapplicationwassimplytoovague.Theapplicationwasattackedasbeingeffectivelyarequestforalldocumentsincludingtheparties\u2019disclosure.Itdidnotspecificallyidentifywhichdocumentssoughtwere\u2018partoftherecordsofthecourt\u2019andwhichweresoughtunderthecourt\u2019sgeneraldiscretion,orthegroundsonwhichtheyweresought.ItwasCape\u2019spositionthatthishadtheeffectthatthecourtcouldnotproperlygrantpermissionundertherulesandcouldnotproperlycarryoutthebalancingexerciseenvisagedinGuardianNewsatpara.85. 131. IdonotacceptthecriticismsbytheCapepartiesthattheapplicationasawholeistoovaguetoenableittobedecidedorfailstoidentifytheclassesofdocumentsought.Thisapplicationinstrictpointofformasissuediseffectivelyanapplicationfortheentiretyofthedocumentsatcourtbutnonethelesstheclassesofdocumentwerelisted(butwitha\u2018catchall\u2019requestattheendwhichmeantthattheneteffectwastorequestalldocuments).Theclassessoughtinthestatementprovidedwiththeapplicationwere: (i) Allwitnessstatements (ii) Experts\u2019reports (iii) Transcriptsofevidence (iv) AlldocumentsdisclosedbyCapeandotherparties. 132. Theclassesofdocumentssoughtarereadilyidentifiedandtheyaretheonespresentlyoccupyingseveralmetresofshelfspaceandaharddiskinmycourtroom.ImustinterprettheruleandPracticeDirectiontorule5.4CasbeingsubjecttotheprincipleofproportionalityinthewayinwhichcourtsallocatetheirresourcesandaccordinglyinthisjudgmentIhavetakenthesameflexibleapproachIwouldwithanymemberofthepublicandthatistoconsidertheextentandformofdisclosurewhichinmyjudgmentisappropriate,giventheclassesofdocumentssoughtandthereasonsgiven,withanycountervailingconsiderations. 133. Intheseapplications,whichMastersoftenencounterinanunopposedform,theusualapproachisarelativelyinformalconsiderationoftherequestandnotanoverlytimeconsumingorresource-heavyprocess.Thecourtsmustbalancetheirlimitedresourceswiththeneedtogiveeffecttoopenness,andacomplexoroverlydetail-heavyapproachwouldbeunattractiveriskbeinganexcessiveuseofpreciouscourtresources. TheBalancingexercise Balancingtheconstitutionalrightofopenaccesstothecourtsandcourtprocesses,andtheconstitutionalrightsofpartiestoreceivejusticethroughthecourts 134. Theconstitutionalrightofaccesstoacourtwouldbeunacceptablyimpairediftheactofgoingtocourt,perhapshavingnochoiceotherthantodosoinsomeinstances,necessarilyentailedthateverydetailofeverycasewasavailabletothepublic. 135. Claimsinvolvingtradesecrets,intimatepersonaldetails,libelsandfalsehoodswhichwouldbedamagingifre-published,andnodoubtotherformsofinformationcouldbedisclosedifcourtproceedingswereunavoidably\u2018open\u2019totheirfullestextent,andsuchcouldinseriouscasesdefeatthepointofbringingtheclaimatall,orplaceanunacceptablecommercial\u2018price\u2019onaccesstothecourtinmuchastheimpositionofcourtfeesimpairedaccessintheUNISONcase. 136. Sincetheprimedutyofacourtistodojustice(nowaprinciplereflectedintheoverridingobjective,whichre-statesthecommonlawbutdoes notreplaceit),itwillsometimesbethecasethattheconstitutionalrighttoopennessofcourtprocessisoverriddenbyconsiderationsofdoingjustice.Insuchcasesitisthecourt\u2019sdutytorestrictaccesstoextentnecessarytoensurethatjusticecanbedoneeffectively. 137. Tothatendtherulesofcourtprovideaqualifiedandcontrolledsystemofopennessregulatedbythecourtrulesinajudicialmanner.Thecourtrulesprovideasystemwherebyinanappropriatecaseapartymayseekordersfromthecourtrestrictingpublicationofdocuments. 138. Inadditiontoseekingordersastonon-disclosureofdocumentsfromthefile,apartymayalsoseekinanappropriatecasetohaveproceedingsheldincamera,orforproceedingstobeanonymisedwhollyorpartly(thelatterbeingcommonplaceinasbestoscasesconcerningdyingmesotheliomavictimswhosecasesproceedinthespecialistMasters\u2019rapidaccessasbestoscourtswhichIdescribedinsomedetailinmyjudgmentinYatesvHMRC[2014]EWCH2311(QB)).Ihavenotbeeninformedinthiscaseofanyapplicationsmadeforhearingsincameraorforanonymity. 139. Theaboveformsofprotectionarenotthesoleprotectionsforaparty.Iaccept,asCapeargued,thatthereisaneedtoperformabalancingexercisealongthelinesenvisagedinGuardianNewswithitsreferencetheretoabalancingexerciseintermsoflookingatthelegitimateinterestsoftheapplicantandthepotentialforharmtotheinterestsofothersintheeventofdisclosure. Theimportanceofthedocumentsonfile 140. IamsatisfiedbasedontheevidenceinthewitnessstatementsbeforemefromMrDringandMsBainsthat(innoorderofpriority)thecontentofthesedocuments: i. wouldbelikelytobeofacademicandscientificinterestaspartofpublicandsocialdiscourseastothehistoryofasbestossafety,regulationandknowledgeasitdevelopedduringthe20thcentury,ii.wouldbelikelytobeconsideredbyadvisersadvisingpartiestoasbestoslitigationastothemeritsoftheircaseswheneverissuesarisewhichtouchuponTechnicalDataNotice13andconnectedRegulations,iii.islikelytoberelevanttheproductsafetyofasbestosinsofarasunderstoodwithinthemajormanufacturersandconnectedcompaniesascomparedwithgeneralpublicatvariouspointsinthe 20thcentury,andiv.islikelytoberelevanttotheextenttowhichemployerdefendantscouldhavebeenexpectedtoappreciatetherisksofasbestos(inthatregardthematerialwillnotnecessarilyassistclaimantsasagainstemployersperse,if,astheapplicant\u2019ssidesuspect,TDN13wasessentiallyabogusstandardcreatedbytheasbestosindustry). 141. ThepointwasmadeforMrDringinevidencethatitwouldbemostundesirableifcourtsdealingwithmattersrelatingtoasbestossafetyandTDN13weretohavetoproceedinignoranceofthemattersinthesedocuments.Totheextentthatthedocumentswouldinprinciplebeavailablefordisclosureintheusualcourseofacourtclaiminterpartesthatoughttobeadiminishedconcernbutitisnotfullydiminishedbecauseconsiderationsofproportionalitycomeintoplayinpersonalclaimsrelatingtomesotheliomagiventhevalueofsuchclaims,andhenceitmaybethatinpracticethedisclosureprocesswouldnotsuffice. 142. Thisisperhapsbesthighlightedbynotingthatthepost-Jacksonapproachtoproportionalitymeansthatevenifdisclosureinthecourtsofaclaimisnecessaryitshouldnotbeorderediftodosowouldbedisproportionate.Therefore,theavailabilityofinterpartesdisclosureordersinmesotheliomaclaimscannotbeacompleteanswertotheriskthatacourtmayproceedwithoutaccesstothematerialcontainedinthesefiles. 143. Asimilarconcern,inthatitreflectsadesiretoensurethatcourtsarenotkeptinignoranceofmaterial,washighlightedinSmithklineBeechamBiologicalsSAvConnaughtLaboratoriesInc[1999]4AllER498at511hperLordBinghamCJwhosaid: \u201cItisinourviewunsatisfactoryifintheproceedingselsewheredecisionsaremadeinignoranceofthegroundswhichledthe PatentsCourtinthiscountrytoholdthepatentinvalid.[\u2026] ConnaughtshouldnotbeinaworsepositionthanifthematerialsonwhichLaddieJreliedinmakinghisdecisionhadbeenreadaloudinopencourt,butnorinouropinionshouldtheybeinabetterposition.\u201d 144. Iacceptthatheretherewasnoultimatedecisionandhencethepointmadeastoknowledgeofthebasisforadecisiondoesnotapplybutitisacloselyrelatedandinmyviewvalidconcernexpressedbytheapplicantherethatdirectingthematerialinthiscasenottobeaccessiblebythepublicwouldriskthecourtsproceedingwithoutthepartiesbeinginapositiontodrawthatmaterialtothejudge\u2019sattentionwhenappropriate. 145. Thisinturnrelatescloselybacktothepointsalreadymadeabovethatthecourtsarenotaprivatedisputeresolutionforumbutrathertheyplayapublicroleininformingothercasesbothastolawandprocedureand,astheabovequotationshowstobedesirable,astofactsandknowledgeinspecialistareas. Cape\u2019sinterestsandriskofharmduetodisclosure \u2018Cherrypicking\u2019 146. IaccepttheconcernsofCapeinsubmissionsthatpartialaccesstothedocumentscouldleadto\u2018cherrypicking\u2019intermsofthepublishingofnegativematerialespeciallyifaccesswasonlygiventomaterialwhichpaintsasbestos,andperhapsCapeinabadlight.Thereisarisk,butamuchreducedrisk,ofcherrypickingifaccessisgivenlessselectivelyandmoreratherthanlesswidely. 147. Thiscourtisnot,saveinrelativelyunusualcircumstances,thearbiterofhowthepublicdiscussthecontentandimplicationsoflegalproceedingsbeforethecourts.MrDringandthepublicatlargemayplaceemphasisonsomematterswhichweregoneintoincourt,ratherthanothers,justascounselintheoriginalcase(afteritsconclusion)didhimselfinrelationtocertainofthe\u2018testdata\u2019mentionedinthepowerpointslidesquotedin mypreviousjudgments,butabenefitofopennessofjusticeinademocracyisthatbalancecanbeprovidedbytheCapepartieswhothemselveshavetheinformationandanatleastequalabilitytomakepublicanyinformationtheywishforthesakeofbalance. Upholdingsettlementsbetweenparties 148. AstoCape\u2019sargumentthatthereisapublicbenefitinensuringthatsettlementsreachedbythepartiesareupheldinanygivencaseandindeedtheCPRencouragesettlementandrequirethecourttoencourageit.Iagreethatifpartiesareconcernedthatthe\u2018dirtywashing\u2019orthetradesecretsandsoforthcontainedinmaterialwhichneedstobeconsideredattrialwouldallemergeinpublicevenintheeventofasettlement,thenthatmightdiscouragesettlement.(HoweveronemightwellsaythatconverselysuchaconcerniftruemightencourageADRoutofcourtinthefirstplace).Buttheprimeconcernastodisclosureissurelymetbythefactthattherulesprovideaveryeffectiveframeworkforgenuinelyconcernedpartiestoseeknon-disclosureordersorordersforhearingsincameraduringthetrialandbeforethematerialinquestionisventilatedinpublic. 149. Ifmaterialissufficientlysensitivethattheendsofjusticewouldbeinterferedwithbypublicventilationofitthenthemeansexisttoensurethatordersaremadetothateffect:itistellingthatthiswholetrialtookplacewithoutsuchordersbeingsoughtandthatthesettlementtookplacedespitetheevidencehavingbeengivenandsubmissionsmadeopenlyincourt. 150. Itisnomattertothiscourtthat,afterhaving\u2018gonepublic\u2019incourt,thepartiesmaylaterhavedecidedthatatermofsettlementwouldbeconfidentialityorasherethedestructionorreturnofthedocuments,unlessthecourthasspecificevidenceandreasonswhydamagewouldbecausedbyadheringtotheprincipleofopenness.InLillyIcosLtdvPfizerLtd(No.2)[2002]1WLR2253perBuxtonLJat25\u201cSimpleassertionsofconfidentialityandofthedamagethatwillbedonebypublication,evenifsupportedbybothparties,shouldnotprevail.Thecourtwillrequirespecificreasonswhyapartywouldbedamagedbythepublicationofadocument.\u201d 151. Itwouldbeveryunattractivebasistoconcludethattheprincipleofopennessshouldbeoustedheresoastorespectanagreementthatdocumentsfreelydeployedinopencourtwithoutapparentconcernatthetimeshouldceasetobeavailabletopublicscrutinymerelybecausethepartiessoagreeprivately. 152. Itwouldbedamagingtoconfidenceinouropencourtsystemforproceedingsofthissorttoappeartohavetakenplaceinamannerinaccessibletothepublicaftertheevent.Thisrelatesbacktotheimportantobservationthatthecourtsarenotaprivatedisputeresolutionforumforthepartiesakintomediationorarbitrationandthatthepublicinterestindevelopingthelaw,andinensuringconfidenceinthesubstanceandprocessofjusticeareinplaywheneverpartiessubmittothejurisdictionofthecourt.Afortioriwherethematerialisoflegal,socialandscientificinterest. Preventionofspuriousclaims 153. AfurtherobjectionbyCapewasthatrestrictingaccesswouldhelptopreventspuriousclaims.Thereismileageinthatpointtotheextentthatreleasingtheinformationmayindeedpromptmoreclaimsinrelationtoharmsaidtobedonebyasbestos,andthereforeonemayassumethatamongthoseclaimstherewillbespuriousorweakcaseswhichmightnototherwisehavebeenattempted. 154. Onemustbalancethatsideeffectwiththeprospectthatmeritoriousclaimsmaywellalsoariseifitisthecasethat,whenthesubjectofTDN13nextcomestobeconsideredbymeoranotherjudge,thedocumentsinthesefilespersuadethecourtthatthestandardswereknownbytheindustrytobeunfoundedornotwellfounded.Itwillbeforthecourts,providedastheyarewiththenecessarytoolsofcostsandcasemanagement,todispatchhopelessclaimswiththeusualvigouroftheMasters\u2019corridormirroredonehopesinothercourts.Theasbestos\u2018court\u2019asIcalleditinYatesvHMRCintheMasters\u2019corridoriswellabletosortthewheatfromthechaff. Impactonthedisclosureprocessinfutureclaims 155. Capearguedthattherecouldbeimpact,ifaccessisgiven,uponthewillingnessofpartiestogivedisclosuretoeachotherinclaims.ThisinmyjudgmentparticularlyappliestobundleDwhichconsistedofserveddisclosuredocumentsnotreadorreliedonattrial.Capeargued,albeitthatthecaseofSayersreferredtodidnotstrictlydecidethepointbecauseitwasconceded,thatbyanalogywithCPR31.22ifapartyseeksaccesstodocumentswhicharenotfiledontherecordsofthecourtbutareinsteadpartofthedisclosedmaterialinthecasewhichhasnotbeenfiled,thenatestof\u2018specialcircumstances\u2019shouldapplyequivalenttotheapproachtakentothecourtsunderCPR31.22fordisclosuredocumentsnotreadattrial. Inanapplicationunderrule5.4C(2)whichmightgiverisetopublicaccesstodocumentswhichoriginatedintheparties\u2019disclosuredocuments,doesafurthertestof\u2018specialcircumstances\u2019applyanalogoustoCPR31.22? 156. ItwillberecalledthatCapecitedtheMarlwoodcaseandadictumofKeithJinSayersarguingthatamemberofthepublicoughtnottobeallowedaccesstodisclosuredocumentsonabasiswhichwasmoreadvantageousthanapartyundertheinterpartesrulesastodisclosure,eveniftheydidamounttopartoftherecordsofthecourtwhichwasnotaccepted). 157. MarlwoodandSayersdonotassistmeinrelationtodocumentswhichhavebeenreferredtoincourtandwhichformpartoftherecordsofthecourt.WheretheSayerscasedoesassist,isthecaseofdisclosuredocumentswhicharenotfiledandnotreferredtoincourt.Inthatevent KeithJadoptedthetestof\u2018specialcircumstances\u2019byanalogywithrule31.22referringtoMarlwoodalbeithedidsoonthebasisofaconcessionbytheSecretaryforHealth. 158. Itseemstomethatsuchanapproachisdesirabletoensurethatnonpartiesarenotplacedinabetterpositionthanpartiesinrelationtounusedbutserveddisclosurematerial,andalsothattheconcernsIhaveexpressedaboveastothepossiblechillingeffectsofregularuseofthewidecommonlawpowersmentionedinBlueandAshleyareavoided. 159. Ifmeredisclosurebetweenthepartieswithoutdeploymentincourtwastotriggertheopennessprincipleforallitemsdisclosedonecanseethatpartieswoulderronthesideofgivingonlythedisclosurerequiredbytherulesandnomore.Itwouldmoreseriouslybeasignificantchillingfactorinthewillingnessofpartiestocometocourtatalliftherewasalowthresholdtobeappliedtoordersfordisclosureofsuchserveddocumentsatcommonlaw.Thatisastrongcountervailingconsiderationwhereoneisconsideringdisclosureofthetypeofunfiled,andunreadmaterialinbundleD. 160. InBlueandAshleyLeggattJatpara.12madethepointthatitisonethingtoconclude(asIhavedoneintheprecedingpartsofthisjudgment)thatinrelationtodocumentssuchasthoseinbundleDthecourthasacommonlawpowertodirectdisclosurebutitisanothertodecidethatthepowershouldbeexercisedinagivencase.Inmyjudgmentifdocumentsarenotonesdeployedincourtbutareunused(butserved)disclosurematerialsthenacautiousapproachandspecialcircumstancesarerequired. 161. ThislitigationwasaboutthesubjectofasbestossafetyandthedevelopmentofknowledgeintheareasinwhichMrDringisinterestedincludingTDN13.Thepartieswereattrialwerefullyrepresentedanddeployedthedocumentswhichwenttotheissuesinthecase.TheproceedingsdidnotrefertodocumentsinbundleDwithoutthembeingcopiedtootherbundles,andtheredoesnotseemtometobeanygroundtothinkthatanappreciationoftheunusedinbundleDwhichwerenotseenassufficientlyrelevanttobereliedoncouldrealisticallyfurtheraimsofMrDringwhichonemightseeaslegitimateinrelationtothiscaseandthissubjectmatter(Idealwithlegitimacyofhisaimsbelow). 162. AconcernofCapeinargumentisthatfulldisclosureofdocumentsmightalsodiscouragepartiesfromtakingapragmaticapproachtodocumentmanagementindocument-heavycasestothejudgeviameanssuchasthedocumentmanagementsystemusedhereanddescribedinCape\u2019sevidence.Icanseeandacceptthatifthemerepresenceincourtoftheentiretyofthedisclosuredocumentsmeantthattheyformedpartoftherecordorwereeasilyamenabletopublicaccessunderthecourtscommonlawpowers,thatsuchwouldbearisk. 163. IhavealreadyconcludedabovethatbundleDwasnot\u2018filed\u2019.InthiscaseeventhoughapplyingcasessuchasBlueandAshleythereisajurisdictiontoorderaccesstoitatcommonlaw,Idonotseegroundsorspecialcircumstancesfororderingdisclosureofithere.Thereiseveryreasontoencouragepartiestoensurethatasystemisavailablesothatdocumentswithindisclosureandwhicharereferredto,aremadeavailableeffectivelytothecourt.Itisonlyatthepointwheredocumentsplayaroleintheproceedingsthattheopennessprincipleapplies. Cape\u2019sundertakingtopreservethedocuments 164. Capehasofferedtoretainthedocumentsitselfsothatinprincipletheyareavailableasatargetforapplicationsfordisclosurebypartiesinthecourseofactualorcontemplatedlitigationinfuture.Suchisasensiblepositionbutitdoesnotgototheissuehere.MrDringisnotapartyorlikelypartytolitigationinvolvingasbestosandnorarenodoubtmanyofthemembersofthepublic,academicsandlawyerswhowouldnonethelessbeinformedbyaccess. 165. Theprinciplesandfocusofdisclosurerulesdifferfromtherulesastoopenjustice.Openjusticeisaimedatscrutinyandunderstandingofcourtproceedings,decisions,processandsettlement,andtheholdingofjudgestoaccount.Disclosureinthecourseofaclaimisaverydifferentcreatureanddoesnotbyitselfimplyanydegreeoflaterpublicaccess.ThereforewhilstCape\u2019spositionastoavailabilityofthisgroupofdocumentsislaudableitdoesnotaffectmydecision.Itisalsodifficulttoseethatinaroutineasbestoscasethevalueoftheclaimwouldpermitsearchanddisclosuretotheextentwhichwas,unusually,appropriateinthiscase. ThatthetranscriptsprovidedtothejudgewerepaidforbythepartiesandnotMrDring 166. ApointwasmadebyCapeaboutthefactthatthepartiesborethecostsofthedailytranscripts.Thatiscorrectandindeedthepartiesborethecostofthefiles,paperandcopyingofdocumentsforthejudgetoo.Idonotseethatthefactthatapartyhaschosentobearthecostofa transcripttoassistthejudge,andhasthendeployedthattranscriptincourtsothatthejudgecanmakehisdecision,caninanywaydisplacetheopennessprinciplebasedonthenotionthatthetranscriptcosthimmoney. EvidenceofspecificharmtoCape\u2019sinterestsinrelationtospecificdocumentsorclassesofdocumentssought 167. Iconsiderthat(absenttheapplicantfailingtomakeoutacasethatthe\u2018defaultposition\u2019astoopennessapplies)itisfortheobjectingpartytoshowwhyparticulardocumentsorclassesofdocumentssoughtwouldriskdoingitharmifdisclosed. 168. IhaveconsideredwhetheritisnecessarythereforeformetoconsidereachandeverydocumentinthepaperbundlesandotherpaperdocumentsandtoascertainwhetherthereisariskofharmtothelegitimateinterestsofCapeindisclosureofeachsuchdocumenttotheextentwhichwouldoutweighthelegitimateinterestsofMrDringinhavingaccess. 169. Inthisinstancethenatureoftheapplicationasissuedwasinrespectofalldocumentsonthecourtfileandindisclosure,andCapeasarepresentedpartywasinapositionifitsowishedtodirectspecificargumenttomeastoparticularissueswithparticulardocumentsorclasseswhichitwasawarewerewithinthefiles. 170. It,ofcourse,hadtheadvantageofknowingwhatthematerialconsistedof,whichMrDringdoesnotinanydetail.IwasnotpresentedwithsubstantialevidenceorargumentfromCapeastoharmtoitatthelevelofparticulardocumentsorevenclassesofdocumentwithinthepaperfiles.LookingatthesecondwitnessstatementofMrIstedwhichdealswiththecountervailingconsiderationsformetotakeintoaccount,atpara.6(d)itisnotablethatnoneoftheareasofobjectiontherecondescendtoparticularsastoharmlikelytobedonetoCapeitselfinrespectofdisclosureofanyofthewiderangeofdocumentsappliedfor.IdonotacceptthatCapewasunabletoputforwardevidenceofpotentialharmtoitsinterestsformetoconsider,merelybecauseofthebreadthofthematerialsought. Privacyconcerns 171. MrIstedinhissecondwitnessstatementraisedaconcernthatamongthematerials,theremaybereferencestoindividualpreviousemployeesintheclaimswhichhadbeenbroughtagainstthevariousinsuredclientsoftheclaimants,whosufferedfromasbestosrelateddiseasesandthatthosepeoplewouldnothavebeenawareatthetimethattheirmedicalconditionscouldbemadepublic. 172. NofurtherdetailisgivenaboutthisobjectionbutImusttakeintoaccounttheprivacyrightsofsuchpeopleintheeventthatthesedocumentsrelatetothem.Thatistemperedbythesadfactthatmesotheliomainvariablycausesthedeathofthesuffererandthattheproductliabilitycasesrelatedtoclaimssettledbyinsurerswhichwerenecessarilysomeconsiderabletimeago.TheparticulargentlemanwhoisnamedintheProductLiabilityParticularsofClaim(onesuspectsreallyasanexampleofmany)isaMrRoyIrwin.Hisclaimwasissuedin2012.Itwassettledin2012.Itrelatedtohisemploymentinthe1970sduringtheeraof\u2018TechnicalDataNote13\u2019.Hedevelopedmesothelioma,onassumesinorabout2012whichtriggeredhisclaim.ItisvirtuallyimpossiblethatMrIrwinisalivetoday,giventheprognosisofmesothelioma.Idonotconsiderthathisprivacyrightsoutweighthepublicinterestindisclosureinthiscase.Ifhewere,contrarytomyexpectation,tobealivetodaythenIwouldexpecttheapplicant\u2019ssolicitorstoinformmeandarrangementscouldbemadetoaskforhisviewsastothedisclosureofanymaterialwhichrelatestohismedicalcondition. 173. IwasnotpresentedwithspecificargumentbyCapeastoparticularsofotherindividualswhosemedicalconditionsmightbereferredtointhedocuments.Itseemstomethattotheextentthosematerialsweredeployedinopencourtandreadbythejudge,andthatthatwasdonewithoutaskingthem,iftheyarestillalive,thentheirprivacyhasalreadysubstantiallybeenlost.Iwasnottoldofanyindividualswhoseconsenthadbeensoughtforbythepartiesfortheuseoftheirmedicalconditionrelatedmaterialincourtinthisclaim.Theimpactontheirprivacy,iftheyarestillalivetoday,isthereforeverymuchreducedbythefactoftherehavingbeentheprioruseoftheirmaterialinopencourt.Inmesotheliomaclaimsthespecialistmastersregularlymakeanonymity orderstoprotectdyingclaimantsanditwasopentothepartiesorthecourttohavemadesuchordersinthiscasebutitappearsneithersidefeltsuchwasappropriate.IdonotthereforeregardtheposthocconcernsnowraisedbyCapeabouttheirprivacyasagroundforrefusingpublicdisclosureofthesedocumentsasacredibleorweightyone. Conclusions 174. ThisjudgmentrelatestotheProductLiabilityclaimdocuments(helpfullythefileswereseparatelymarkedastowhichclaimtheyrelatedtoinviewofthesimultaneousconsiderationofsomeclaimsrelatedtoinsurancecover). 175. Astostatementsofcase,submissionsandskeletons,thosesaynomorethanwouldeitherhavebeensaidorallyorbyreference,orwouldbetreatedasasubstitutefororalsubmissions,andthepublicinterest,andMrDring\u2019sinterestinseeingthemsoastounderstandthemannerinwhichtheevidenceandargumentsdevelopedaboutthesafetyhistoryofasbestos,andhowtheissuesweremetbyeachsideinthelightofthedocumentsreliedon,isclear. 176. Astotranscriptsofdailyhearings,thesearenomorethananon-partycouldobtainbypayingforatranscriptandthesameconsiderationsapplyasaboveintermsofunderstandingthemannerinwhichtheevidenceandargumentsdevelopedaboutthesafetyhistoryofasbestos. 177. Thestatements,expertreportsandthedocumentsreliedonbythepartiesinthetrialbundles(iethoseotherthanbundleD)ifdisclosedmaywellexposeCapeorotherstolitigationinageneralsense.Iacceptthatsomeclaimsmighttakeplacewhichlackmerit,anditseemstomethatthestatements,reportsanddocumentsaretheitemswhichmostengagethatconcern.ButingeneralifthesedocumentsdoexposeCapetopotentiallitigationthentheywouldbelikelytobedisclosableinanyeventasbetweentheparties. 178. ThereisastrongpublicinterestinfacilitatingabetterunderstandingofthehistoryofasbestossafetyandtheoriginsofTDN13.Thereisalegitimateinterestinensuringthatmaterialdeployedinthiscaseisavailabletocourtsandlegaladvisersintheinterestsofbothconsistency ofdecisionmakingandprovisionofadviceastomeritsorlackthereof,andtoenablethepublictodiscussandconsiderhowthematerialinthiscaseledtoasettlement. 179. Iconsiderthereforethatthebalanceisinfavourofdisclosureof: vii. thewitnessstatementsincludingexhibits, viii. expertreports, ix. transcripts, x. discloseddocumentsreliedonbythepartiesattrialiethosein thepaperbundlesonly, xi. writtensubmissionsandskeletons, xii. Statementsofcasetoincluderequestsforfurtherinformationandanswersifcontainedinthebundlesreliedonattrial. 180. IagreewithCapethatpartialdisclosureofdocumentsreliedonattrialcouldcreateapublicimagewhichisbiasedorincompletebywayof\u2018cherrypicking\u2019.Cape\u2019spreferencewasofcoursefornoaccesstobegivensoastoavoidsucharisk.Thelonglistoftypesofdocumentsoughtbytheapplicantwhichwasproducedshortlybeforetrialhighlightstheriskthatverytargetedaccesstosolely\u2018negative\u2019documentsinacomplexstorywouldbeundesirable.Ithereforeconcludethatitwouldservenousefulpurposeto\u2018fillet\u2019thedocumentswithintheabovecategories.Theywereallbeforethecourtandreliedon,bydefinition.To\u2018edit\u2019thefilesinthiscasewoulditselfvergeonappearingtocensortherecordofproceedingswithoutanyrealbasisfordoingsoandwouldbeadisproportionateexerciseabsenttherehavingbeenspecificsubmissionsbyCapeastoconcernsaboutparticulardocuments. 181. InformaltermsIamthereforeallowingtheapplicationinrelationtodocumentclasses(i)to(iii)listedinthestatementofMsBainsdated6April2017butonlypartiallyallowingdisclosureofdocumentsincategory(iv). 182. Iamalsoallowingdisclosureofthewrittensubmissionsandskeletons(thesewerenotreferredtointhefirststatementinsupportoftheapplicationwhenissuedbutwereinsubstancesoughtinMsBains\u2019finalstatement). 183. TheinclusionofstatementsofcaseisbaseduponanindicationinMsBains\u2019secondstatementthatnotallthepleadingshadbeenmadeavailabletoherclientfromthecourtfiletodateandthatthemissingstatementsofcasewerethereforerequested.Inclusionofrequestsforfurtherinformationandanswersappearsreasonablynecessarytotheunderstandingofthecase. 184. IamexcludingfromdisclosurethecontentsofbundleDforreasonsalreadygiven.Iamalsoexcludingcopiesofthedisclosurestatementsofthepartiesbecausethatwouldtendtoundermine(bygivingdisclosurebyindirectmeans)thedecisionIhavemadethatbundleDisnotdisclosed. 185. TheApplicantmayreturntocourttoseekadecisionastoaccessinrespectofanydocumentsinbundleDwhichitappearsuponconsiderationwereomittedfromthepaperbundles,yetwereinfactreliedonatcourt(thisoughttobeapparentfromthedocumentsforwhichaccesshasbeengivenasabove).BundleDshallremainimpoundedincourt. 186. ThedocumentssubjecttodisclosuretoMrDringshallthereforebemadeavailablebythecourttotheApplicant\u2019ssolicitorasanofficerofthecourtforcopyingorscanninguponthegivingofanundertakingthatdocumentsnotwithinthescopeofthisorder,ifcontainedinthefiles,willnotbecopied. 187. IdirectthatthecourtfileandimpoundedbundleDshallnotbedestroyedintheusualcourseofadministrationofthecourtwithoutanorderofthecourt. 188. ItwasacceptedbyCapethatthecourthasadiscretiontodirectthatadocumentbeplacedonthecourtfileifitsochooses.WhilstIhavedecidedthattheskeletons,submissionsandtranscriptswereeffectivelyfiledinthecircumstancesofthiscase,Idirectthatthetranscripts,submissionsandskeletonsshallfortheavoidanceofdoubtbeplacedonthecourtfileinanyevent. Permissiontoappeal 189. IhaveindicatedinadvancetothepartiesthatIwillconsiderpermissiontoappealofmyownmotion. 190. InmyjudgmentthereisnorealprospectofasuccessfulappealandnoothergoodreasonforanappealandIthereforedonotgrantpermissiontoappealtoeitherpartyinsofarasIhavedecidedpointsagainstthem. 191. Itmaybethatthiscase,intheeventofanappeal,oughttobeheardbytheCourtofAppealinviewoftheneedforreasonableexpeditionofcaseswhichrelatetomesotheliomaclaims,theimportanceofthedocumentstowhichIhavealludedinthisjudgment,andbecausethedecisionofLordJusticeToulsontowhichIhavereferredwasitselfatCourtofAppeallevelandiscentraltotheapproachtakenastothedefaultpositionbeingopennessofaccess.Irespectfullyexpressthatview.Howeverasamatterofjurisdiction,thiscourthavingrefusedpermissiontoappeal,anyrenewedapplicationmustbemadetoaJudge(otherthanaMaster),havingthejurisdictionoftheAppealCourt. MASTERVICTORIAMCCLOUD 5 December2017<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(2) CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc[2017]EWHC811(QB) MrGrahamDringvCapeDistributionLtd,CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc,Concept70Ltd&Ors(InterestedParties)[2017]EWHC2103(QB) R(GuardianNews&MediaLtd)vWestminsterMagistratesCourt[2013]QB618 ChanUSeekvAlvisVehiclesLtd[2005]1WLR2965 NABvSerco[2014]EWHC1255 GIOPersonalInvestmentServicesLtdvLiverpoolandLondonSteamshipP&I AssociationLtd[1999]1WLR984 DianAOvDavisFrankelandMead(afirm)[2005]1WLR2951 BaringsplcvCoopersandLybrand[2000]1WLR2353 TheLawDebentureTrust[2003]EWHC2297(Comm.) SmithklineBeechamBiologicalsSAvConnaughtLaboratoriesInc[1999]4AllER498 ABCLtdvY[2012]1WLR532 VariousClaimantsvNewsGroupNewspapersLtd[2012]1WLR2545 R(Taranissi)vHFEA[2009]EWHC(Admin)130 SayersvSmithklineBeechamplc[2007]EWHC1346(QB) DobsonvHastings[1992]Ch.392 PfizerHealthAbvSchwarzPharmaAg[2010]EWHC3236(Pat.) R(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51 DonoghuevStevenson[1932]AC562 YatesvHMRC[2014]EWCH2311(QB) LillyIcosLtdvPfizerLtd(No.2)[2002]1WLR2253 MarlwoodCommercialIncvKozenyandothers[2005]1WLR104 WilliamsvUniversityofBirmingham[2011]EWCACiv.1242 NestecSAvDualitLtd[2013]EWHC2737(Pat.) Smith(ExecutoroftheEstateofSmith,deceased)vPortswoodHouseLtd[2016]EWHC939(QB) BlueandAshleyvTimesNewspapersLtd[2017]EWHC1553(Comm.) R(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51 StokesvGuest[1968]1WLR1776at1783 \u2018TDN13\u2019authoritiesbeforethecourtbutnotreferredtoinjudgment: HillandBellinghamvBarnsleyandSonsLtdandothers[2013]EWHC520(QB) McGregorvGenco(FC)Ltd[2014]EWHC1376(QB) MacarthyandothersvMarksandSpencerandanother[2014]EWHC3183(QB) WoodwardvSSEnergyandClimateChange[2015]EWHC3604(QB) PrescottvUniversityofStAndrews[2016]CSOH3 —- SUMMARY Thissummaryisprovidedtoassistthereader.Themaintextofjudgmentprevailsintheeventofanyinconsistencybetweenthesummaryandthebodyofthejudgment. Principlesandstatusofthedocumentsinthiscase 1. Therightofaccesstocourtisinherentintheruleoflaw. 2. Opennessofjusticefostersthescrutinyofthecourtsbythepublic,protectstheintegrityofthecourtprocessandassiststhedevelopmentofthelawandlegalknowledge.Ittherebysupportsthepracticaleffectivenessoftherightofaccesstocourt. 3. Thecourtsdonotmerelyprovideapublicservicetothe\u2018users\u2019whoappearbeforethem.Previouscasesformthebasisoftheadvicegiventothosewhosecasesarenowbeforethecourts,orwhoneedtobeadvisedastothebasisonwhichtheirclaimmightfairlybesettled,orwhoneedtobeadvisedthattheircaseishopeless. 5. Accesstoacourt,beingnotmerelytheprovisionofaserviceto\u2018users\u2019entailsthatthepartiessubmittingtothejurisdictiondonothavefullsovereigntytodeterminesimplybyprivateagreementbetweenthemselvestheextenttowhichthepublicmaybemadeawareofanyaspectoftheproceedingsbeforethecourt. 6. Thereisaninherentandforeseeablepossibilitythatmaterialdeployedincourtbytheparties,orfiledupontherecordsofthecourtaspartofitsprocess,willformpartofthecorpusofmaterialwhichmaybedeployedinothercases,usedforthepurposesoflegaladvice,beingacademicallyorjournalisticallydiscussed,orconsideredbyParliament. Therulesandcommonlawjurisdictiontoorderaccesstodocumentsbythepublic 7. CPRrule5.4Cistheprimarymeansbywhichthecourt\u2019scommonlawpowertoallowaccesstodocumentstothepublicfromthecourtrecordisadministeredbutthecommonlawisthemasterandnottheservantoftherules.Therulesprovideaqualifiedandcontrolledsystemofopennessregulatedbythecourtrulesinajudicialmanner. 8. WheredocumentsarefiledontherecordofthecourtthentheyfallwithinthescopeofCPR5.4C(2). 9. Serveddocumentsnotontherecordsofthecourtdonotfallwithinrule 5.4Cbutmaybedisclosedunderthecourt\u2019scommonlawpower. Applicabletest 10. Documentsfiledontherecordofthecourtandwhicharereadortreatedasreadincourtaresubjecttoadefaultpositioninfavouroftheprincipleofopenjusticeiftheapplicanthasalegitimateinterest….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[33569],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[52833],"kji_subject":[7660],"kji_keyword":[53620,53619,17066,53618,8467],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-806930","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-high-court-queens-bench-division","kji_year-52833","kji_subject-constitutionnel","kji_keyword-atpara","kji_keyword-bundled","kji_keyword-filed","kji_keyword-guardiannews","kji_keyword-users","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nDring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution - access to courts - open justice) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution - access to courts - open justice)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"(2) CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc[2017]EWHC811(QB) MrGrahamDringvCapeDistributionLtd,CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc,Concept70Ltd&Ors(InterestedParties)[2017]EWHC2103(QB) R(GuardianNews&MediaLtd)vWestminsterMagistratesCourt[2013]QB618 ChanUSeekvAlvisVehiclesLtd[2005]1WLR2965 NABvSerco[2014]EWHC1255 GIOPersonalInvestmentServicesLtdvLiverpoolandLondonSteamshipP&I AssociationLtd[1999]1WLR984 DianAOvDavisFrankelandMead(afirm)[2005]1WLR2951 BaringsplcvCoopersandLybrand[2000]1WLR2353 TheLawDebentureTrust[2003]EWHC2297(Comm.) SmithklineBeechamBiologicalsSAvConnaughtLaboratoriesInc[1999]4AllER498 ABCLtdvY[2012]1WLR532 VariousClaimantsvNewsGroupNewspapersLtd[2012]1WLR2545 R(Taranissi)vHFEA[2009]EWHC(Admin)130 SayersvSmithklineBeechamplc[2007]EWHC1346(QB) DobsonvHastings[1992]Ch.392 PfizerHealthAbvSchwarzPharmaAg[2010]EWHC3236(Pat.) R(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51 DonoghuevStevenson[1932]AC562 YatesvHMRC[2014]EWCH2311(QB) LillyIcosLtdvPfizerLtd(No.2)[2002]1WLR2253 MarlwoodCommercialIncvKozenyandothers[2005]1WLR104 WilliamsvUniversityofBirmingham[2011]EWCACiv.1242 NestecSAvDualitLtd[2013]EWHC2737(Pat.) Smith(ExecutoroftheEstateofSmith,deceased)vPortswoodHouseLtd[2016]EWHC939(QB) BlueandAshleyvTimesNewspapersLtd[2017]EWHC1553(Comm.) R(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51 StokesvGuest[1968]1WLR1776at1783 \u2018TDN13\u2019authoritiesbeforethecourtbutnotreferredtoinjudgment: HillandBellinghamvBarnsleyandSonsLtdandothers[2013]EWHC520(QB) McGregorvGenco(FC)Ltd[2014]EWHC1376(QB) MacarthyandothersvMarksandSpencerandanother[2014]EWHC3183(QB) WoodwardvSSEnergyandClimateChange[2015]EWHC3604(QB) PrescottvUniversityofStAndrews[2016]CSOH3 ---- SUMMARY Thissummaryisprovidedtoassistthereader.Themaintextofjudgmentprevailsintheeventofanyinconsistencybetweenthesummaryandthebodyofthejudgment. Principlesandstatusofthedocumentsinthiscase 1. Therightofaccesstocourtisinherentintheruleoflaw. 2. Opennessofjusticefostersthescrutinyofthecourtsbythepublic,protectstheintegrityofthecourtprocessandassiststhedevelopmentofthelawandlegalknowledge.Ittherebysupportsthepracticaleffectivenessoftherightofaccesstocourt. 3. Thecourtsdonotmerelyprovideapublicservicetothe\u2018users\u2019whoappearbeforethem.Previouscasesformthebasisoftheadvicegiventothosewhosecasesarenowbeforethecourts,orwhoneedtobeadvisedastothebasisonwhichtheirclaimmightfairlybesettled,orwhoneedtobeadvisedthattheircaseishopeless. 5. Accesstoacourt,beingnotmerelytheprovisionofaserviceto\u2018users\u2019entailsthatthepartiessubmittingtothejurisdictiondonothavefullsovereigntytodeterminesimplybyprivateagreementbetweenthemselvestheextenttowhichthepublicmaybemadeawareofanyaspectoftheproceedingsbeforethecourt. 6. Thereisaninherentandforeseeablepossibilitythatmaterialdeployedincourtbytheparties,orfiledupontherecordsofthecourtaspartofitsprocess,willformpartofthecorpusofmaterialwhichmaybedeployedinothercases,usedforthepurposesoflegaladvice,beingacademicallyorjournalisticallydiscussed,orconsideredbyParliament. Therulesandcommonlawjurisdictiontoorderaccesstodocumentsbythepublic 7. CPRrule5.4Cistheprimarymeansbywhichthecourt\u2019scommonlawpowertoallowaccesstodocumentstothepublicfromthecourtrecordisadministeredbutthecommonlawisthemasterandnottheservantoftherules.Therulesprovideaqualifiedandcontrolledsystemofopennessregulatedbythecourtrulesinajudicialmanner. 8. WheredocumentsarefiledontherecordofthecourtthentheyfallwithinthescopeofCPR5.4C(2). 9. Serveddocumentsnotontherecordsofthecourtdonotfallwithinrule 5.4Cbutmaybedisclosedunderthecourt\u2019scommonlawpower. Applicabletest 10. Documentsfiledontherecordofthecourtandwhicharereadortreatedasreadincourtaresubjecttoadefaultpositioninfavouroftheprincipleofopenjusticeiftheapplicanthasalegitimateinterest....\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\\\/\",\"name\":\"Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution - access to courts - open justice) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-01T13:50:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution – access to courts – open justice)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution - access to courts - open justice) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution - access to courts - open justice)","og_description":"(2) CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc[2017]EWHC811(QB) MrGrahamDringvCapeDistributionLtd,CapeIntermediateHoldingsPlc,Concept70Ltd&Ors(InterestedParties)[2017]EWHC2103(QB) R(GuardianNews&MediaLtd)vWestminsterMagistratesCourt[2013]QB618 ChanUSeekvAlvisVehiclesLtd[2005]1WLR2965 NABvSerco[2014]EWHC1255 GIOPersonalInvestmentServicesLtdvLiverpoolandLondonSteamshipP&I AssociationLtd[1999]1WLR984 DianAOvDavisFrankelandMead(afirm)[2005]1WLR2951 BaringsplcvCoopersandLybrand[2000]1WLR2353 TheLawDebentureTrust[2003]EWHC2297(Comm.) SmithklineBeechamBiologicalsSAvConnaughtLaboratoriesInc[1999]4AllER498 ABCLtdvY[2012]1WLR532 VariousClaimantsvNewsGroupNewspapersLtd[2012]1WLR2545 R(Taranissi)vHFEA[2009]EWHC(Admin)130 SayersvSmithklineBeechamplc[2007]EWHC1346(QB) DobsonvHastings[1992]Ch.392 PfizerHealthAbvSchwarzPharmaAg[2010]EWHC3236(Pat.) R(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51 DonoghuevStevenson[1932]AC562 YatesvHMRC[2014]EWCH2311(QB) LillyIcosLtdvPfizerLtd(No.2)[2002]1WLR2253 MarlwoodCommercialIncvKozenyandothers[2005]1WLR104 WilliamsvUniversityofBirmingham[2011]EWCACiv.1242 NestecSAvDualitLtd[2013]EWHC2737(Pat.) Smith(ExecutoroftheEstateofSmith,deceased)vPortswoodHouseLtd[2016]EWHC939(QB) BlueandAshleyvTimesNewspapersLtd[2017]EWHC1553(Comm.) R(OntheApplicationofUNISON)vLordChancellor[2017]UKSC51 StokesvGuest[1968]1WLR1776at1783 \u2018TDN13\u2019authoritiesbeforethecourtbutnotreferredtoinjudgment: HillandBellinghamvBarnsleyandSonsLtdandothers[2013]EWHC520(QB) McGregorvGenco(FC)Ltd[2014]EWHC1376(QB) MacarthyandothersvMarksandSpencerandanother[2014]EWHC3183(QB) WoodwardvSSEnergyandClimateChange[2015]EWHC3604(QB) PrescottvUniversityofStAndrews[2016]CSOH3 ---- SUMMARY Thissummaryisprovidedtoassistthereader.Themaintextofjudgmentprevailsintheeventofanyinconsistencybetweenthesummaryandthebodyofthejudgment. Principlesandstatusofthedocumentsinthiscase 1. Therightofaccesstocourtisinherentintheruleoflaw. 2. Opennessofjusticefostersthescrutinyofthecourtsbythepublic,protectstheintegrityofthecourtprocessandassiststhedevelopmentofthelawandlegalknowledge.Ittherebysupportsthepracticaleffectivenessoftherightofaccesstocourt. 3. Thecourtsdonotmerelyprovideapublicservicetothe\u2018users\u2019whoappearbeforethem.Previouscasesformthebasisoftheadvicegiventothosewhosecasesarenowbeforethecourts,orwhoneedtobeadvisedastothebasisonwhichtheirclaimmightfairlybesettled,orwhoneedtobeadvisedthattheircaseishopeless. 5. Accesstoacourt,beingnotmerelytheprovisionofaserviceto\u2018users\u2019entailsthatthepartiessubmittingtothejurisdictiondonothavefullsovereigntytodeterminesimplybyprivateagreementbetweenthemselvestheextenttowhichthepublicmaybemadeawareofanyaspectoftheproceedingsbeforethecourt. 6. Thereisaninherentandforeseeablepossibilitythatmaterialdeployedincourtbytheparties,orfiledupontherecordsofthecourtaspartofitsprocess,willformpartofthecorpusofmaterialwhichmaybedeployedinothercases,usedforthepurposesoflegaladvice,beingacademicallyorjournalisticallydiscussed,orconsideredbyParliament. Therulesandcommonlawjurisdictiontoorderaccesstodocumentsbythepublic 7. CPRrule5.4Cistheprimarymeansbywhichthecourt\u2019scommonlawpowertoallowaccesstodocumentstothepublicfromthecourtrecordisadministeredbutthecommonlawisthemasterandnottheservantoftherules.Therulesprovideaqualifiedandcontrolledsystemofopennessregulatedbythecourtrulesinajudicialmanner. 8. WheredocumentsarefiledontherecordofthecourtthentheyfallwithinthescopeofCPR5.4C(2). 9. Serveddocumentsnotontherecordsofthecourtdonotfallwithinrule 5.4Cbutmaybedisclosedunderthecourt\u2019scommonlawpower. Applicabletest 10. Documentsfiledontherecordofthecourtandwhicharereadortreatedasreadincourtaresubjecttoadefaultpositioninfavouroftheprincipleofopenjusticeiftheapplicanthasalegitimateinterest....","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/","name":"Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution - access to courts - open justice) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-01T13:50:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/dring-v-cape-distribution-ltd-anor-constitution-access-to-courts-open-justice\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution – access to courts – open justice)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/806930","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=806930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=806930"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=806930"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=806930"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=806930"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=806930"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=806930"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=806930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}