Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Group) [2018] EWCA Civ 1795 (31 July 2018)

Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Group) [2018] EWCA Civ 1795 (31 July 2018)

The court held that the Master was wrong to conclude that trial bundles, witness statements, expert reports, skeleton arguments, and transcripts were part of the 'records of the court' under CPR 5.4C; only formal documents such as statements of case are included. The court's inherent jurisdiction does not extend to granting non-party access to trial documents, but does allow access to skeleton arguments used in lieu of oral submissions. The order made was ultra vires and must be set aside except as regards statements of case.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 1795
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited; Respondent/applicant: Mr Graham Dring (for and on behalf of The Asbestos Victims Support Group)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (civil Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Master's order set aside except as regards statements of case.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Non Party Access, Court Records, Inherent Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Access to Court Documents Open Justice Non Party Access Court Records Inherent Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited

Appellant/defendant

Mr Graham Dring (for and on behalf of The Asbestos Victims Support Group)

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (civil Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power under CPR 5.4C or its inherent jurisdiction to permit non-party access to trial documents, bundles, skeleton arguments, and transcripts
  2. 2 Proper exercise of discretion in granting access to court documents
  3. 3 Scope of 'records of the court' under CPR 5.4C

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Master was wrong to conclude that trial bundles, witness statements, expert reports, skeleton arguments, and transcripts were part of the 'records of the court' under CPR 5.4C; only formal documents such as statements of case are included. The court's inherent jurisdiction does not extend to granting non-party access to trial documents, but does allow access to skeleton arguments used in lieu of oral submissions. The order made was ultra vires and must be set aside except as regards statements of case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Master's order set aside except as regards statements of case.

Orders

  • AVSGF entitled only to statements of case under CPR 5.4C(1)(a).
  • No access granted to trial bundles, witness statements, expert reports, skeleton arguments, or transcripts under CPR 5.4C or inherent jurisdiction.