Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring

Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring

The Supreme Court held that the principle of open justice gives courts inherent jurisdiction to grant non-party access to documents placed before the court and referred to during proceedings, subject to a fact-specific balancing exercise. The Civil Procedure Rules do not exhaustively define the scope of access, and the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make its order, but the basis for any wider order is the inherent jurisdiction in support of open justice, not CPR rule 5.4C(2).

Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd; Respondent/cross Appellant: Dring (for and on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK); Intervener: Media Lawyers Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal order largely upheld.
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Access to Court Documents, Inherent Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Open Justice Access to Court Documents Inherent Jurisdiction Civil Procedure Rules

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd

Appellant/cross Respondent

Dring (for and on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK)

Respondent/cross Appellant

Media Lawyers Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of CPR rule 5.4C(2) regarding non-party access to court documents
  2. 2 Whether access to court documents is governed solely by Civil Procedure Rules or includes inherent jurisdiction
  3. 3 Extent and exercise of inherent jurisdiction to allow access to court documents

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the principle of open justice gives courts inherent jurisdiction to grant non-party access to documents placed before the court and referred to during proceedings, subject to a fact-specific balancing exercise. The Civil Procedure Rules do not exhaustively define the scope of access, and the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make its order, but the basis for any wider order is the inherent jurisdiction in support of open justice, not CPR rule 5.4C(2).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal order largely upheld.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4 and 7 of the Court of Appeal order stand (granting access to statements of case and specified documents).
  • Paragraph 8 replaced: Application to be listed before Picken J (or another High Court Judge) to determine whether Cape should provide copies of any other document placed before the judge and referred to in the trial, at the respondent’s expense, in accordance with Supreme Court principles.