header-logo header-logo

10 June 2016 / Robin Preston-Jones , Kathryn Garbett
Issue: 7702 / Categories: Features , Fraud
printer mail-detail

In the club

nlj_7702_garbett

Kathryn Garbett & Robin Preston-Jones discuss confidentiality clubs

Litigation is usually an open, public process. The Civil Procedure Rules allow for non-parties to access pleadings, judgments and orders from the court file in most circumstances. Hearings are usually open to journalists, interested third parties and/or curious tourists to attend.

Within the litigation process, parties are required to disclose all their relevant documents regardless of how confidential they are (with only legally privileged documents excluded). Adverse parties to whom such documents are disclosed are, ordinarily, free to share those documents within the broad legal team (including with client representatives, potential witnesses and experts) and use them for the purposes of the proceedings in which they are disclosed.

The appropriateness of such “open justice” is rarely questioned. Public access to the court room and the court file is based on the principle that not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. It is an important part of the common law adversarial system that parties are required to be open, sharing the documents

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll