Morretti v Leone & Anor [2025] EWHC 145 (KB) (31 January 2025)

Morretti v Leone & Anor [2025] EWHC 145 (KB) (31 January 2025)

Redaction of client and advisor names is justified to protect commercial confidentiality and does not impede open justice, as such information is peripheral to the issues and not necessary for public understanding. Redactions regarding current and former employees/members are not justified, as the allegations concern statements by the First Defendant and do not warrant overriding open justice. The application for a declaration regarding the medical report is redundant, as the rules already make its status clear.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 145 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Jacapo Morretti; First Defendant: Davide Leone; Second Defendant: Davide Leone & Partners Investment Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Restriction of Access to Court File and Redactions
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Confidentiality, Article 8 ECHR, Redaction of Court Documents, Access to Court Records, Employment Related Bullying and Harassment
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Employment Law Open Justice Confidentiality Article 8 ECHR Redaction of Court Documents Access to Court Records +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacapo Morretti

Claimant

Davide Leone

First Defendant

Davide Leone & Partners Investment Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Restriction of Access to Court File and Redactions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confidential client and commercially sensitive information should be redacted from statements of case accessible to the public
  2. 2 Whether references to current and former employees/members (including allegations of sexual conduct and disparaging comments) should be redacted
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's medical report forms part of the statement of case for the purposes of CPR 5.4C

Ratio Decidendi

Redaction of client and advisor names is justified to protect commercial confidentiality and does not impede open justice, as such information is peripheral to the issues and not necessary for public understanding. Redactions regarding current and former employees/members are not justified, as the allegations concern statements by the First Defendant and do not warrant overriding open justice. The application for a declaration regarding the medical report is redundant, as the rules already make its status clear.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Redactions of client and advisor names in the statements of case are ordered to protect confidentiality.
  • Application for redactions regarding current and former employees/members is refused.