header-logo header-logo

08 August 2019
Issue: 7852 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Weekly law digests

Disclosure

Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (for and on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) [2019] UKSC 38, [2019] All ER (D) 161 (Jul)

It was settled law that courts had an inherent jurisdiction to allow access to materials used in the course of court proceedings, based on the constitutional principle of open justice. A non-party seeking access to court documents had to explain why he sought it and how granting access would advance that principle. The Supreme Court so ruled, in dismissing the appellant company’s (Cape’s) appeal, and the respondent’s cross-appeal on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK (Forum), concerning how much of the written material placed before the court in earlier proceedings brought against Cape, by certain employers’ insurers, for a contribution in respect of damages paid to the employers’ former employees who had contracted mesothelioma in the course of their employment. Those proceedings had been settled and Forum, which had not been a party in them, had applied for copies of documents used in the proceedings. The

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
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

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll