Skeleton arguments: unwanted attention?

In brief

• Covers recent caselaw on press applications for access to skeleton arguments and other court documents.
• Refers to Bouncylagoon [2022] and Dring [2019].

In (the fantastically named) Bouncylagoon Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2022] UKFTT 361 (TC) (Bouncylagoon), the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (FTT) granted a BBC journalist’s application for access to electronic copies of the parties’ skeleton arguments, but refused her application for a copy of the hearing bundle on the facts of the case. This relatively short decision serves as a strong warning to practitioners against assuming that an early procedural hearing cannot lead to interest and attention from the press and/or requests for documents from inquisitive journalists looking to generate news stories. Lawyers will need to consider their clients’ position and advise them accordingly on the balance of information that is included in court documents.

Brief background

The decision relates to an application made by a BBC journalist