Barclay & Anor v Barclay & Ors (No 2)

Barclay & Anor v Barclay & Ors (No 2)

The court declined to order the claimants to provide the CCTV footage to the media, finding the material was not in the court's records or possession, the application was made on short notice, and the claimants could voluntarily provide the footage if they chose. The principle of open justice did not mandate disclosure in these circumstances, and privacy rights were engaged but not determinative.

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
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Non Party Access, Privacy Rights, Court Records, Reporting Restrictions
Media Law Privacy Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Non Party Access Privacy Rights Court Records Reporting Restrictions

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 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the court order the claimants to provide CCTV footage to the media?
  2. 2 Does the principle of open justice require disclosure of documents used in private hearings?
  3. 3 Are privacy rights of the first defendant engaged by disclosure of the footage?

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to order the claimants to provide the CCTV footage to the media, finding the material was not in the court's records or possession, the application was made on short notice, and the claimants could voluntarily provide the footage if they chose. The principle of open justice did not mandate disclosure in these circumstances, and privacy rights were engaged but not determinative.

Court Disposition

application refused