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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll