Barclay & Anor v Barclay & Ors (No 2) [2020] EWHC 1180 (QB) (07 May 2020)

Barclay & Anor v Barclay & Ors (No 2) [2020] EWHC 1180 (QB) (07 May 2020)

The court refused to order the claimants to provide the CCTV footage to the media because the application was made on short notice, the footage was not in the court's possession or records, there was no authority for compelling a party to provide such material in these circumstances, and the footage was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1180 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sir Frederick Barclay; Claimant: Amanda Barclay; Defendant: Alistair Barclay; Defendant: Aidan Barclay; Defendant: Howard Barclay; Defendant: Andrew Barclay; Defendant: Philip Peters
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Application for Non Party Access to Evidence
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Non Party Access to Court Documents, Privacy Rights, Reporting Restrictions
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Open Justice Non Party Access to Court Documents Privacy Rights Reporting Restrictions

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Frederick Barclay

Claimant

Amanda Barclay

Claimant

Alistair Barclay

Defendant

Aidan Barclay

Defendant

Howard Barclay

Defendant

Andrew Barclay

Defendant

Philip Peters

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Application for Non Party Access to Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order the claimants to provide CCTV footage (exhibit in proceedings) to the media under the principle of open justice and/or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to order the claimants to provide the CCTV footage to the media because the application was made on short notice, the footage was not in the court's possession or records, there was no authority for compelling a party to provide such material in these circumstances, and the footage was not necessary for reporting the hearing. The claimants could voluntarily provide the footage, but the court would not mandate it.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • No order for disclosure of CCTV footage to the media