header-logo header-logo

Confidential information

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

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

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll