header-logo header-logo

16 December 2010
Issue: 7446 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Confidential information

ABC Ltd v Y [2010] EWHC 3176 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 83 (Dec)

Under CPR 5.4, the default position was that any party who was not a party to the proceedings was entitled to a copy of a statement of case but not any other document.

Even if he/she wanted to see a copy of a witness statement, deployed in the course of a trial held in public, the default position was that he/she was not entitled to it. He was entitled to a copy of a judgment or order given or made in public, but not to a judgment or order given or made in private.

There was no power given to the court to order that a non-party could not obtain a judgment or order given or made in public. The power in CPR 5.4C(4) to derogate from the general rule was confined to statements of case. It was unnecessary to provide that non-parties could not obtain copies of other documents on the court file without further order. Under CPR 5.4C(2) an order would always be necessary for a non-party to obtain anything other

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll