Jacapo Morretti v Davide Leone & Anor

Jacapo Morretti v Davide Leone & Anor

Redaction of client and advisor names is justified to protect confidentiality and commercial sensitivity without prejudicing open justice or fair trial; redactions regarding employees and members are not justified as allegations are not made directly against them and open justice prevails; medical report is not part of statement of case and access is governed by CPR 5.4C(1)(a).

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
Civil / Ruling on Applications to Restrict Access to Court File and Related Relief
Outcome
Applications for redaction of client and advisor names granted; applications for redaction of employee/member references refused; declaration regarding medical report refused.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Confidentiality, Article 8 Rights, Redaction of Court Documents, Access to Court Records
Civil Procedure Employment Law Privacy Law Open Justice Confidentiality Article 8 Rights Redaction of Court Documents Access to Court Records

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacapo Morretti

Claimant

Davide Leone

First Defendant

Davide Leone & Partners Investment Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications to Restrict Access to Court File and Related Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether client and commercially sensitive information should be redacted from statements of case
  2. 2 Whether references to current and former employees and members should be redacted
  3. 3 Whether the medical report forms part of the statement of case for purposes of CPR 5.4C

Ratio Decidendi

Redaction of client and advisor names is justified to protect confidentiality and commercial sensitivity without prejudicing open justice or fair trial; redactions regarding employees and members are not justified as allegations are not made directly against them and open justice prevails; medical report is not part of statement of case and access is governed by CPR 5.4C(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Applications for redaction of client and advisor names granted; applications for redaction of employee/member references refused; declaration regarding medical report refused.

Orders

  • Client and advisor names to be redacted from statements of case and schedules.
  • No redactions ordered for references to current and former employees and members.