GSTS Pathology LLP, R (on the application of) v Revenue & Customs [2013] EWHC 1823 (Admin) (21 June 2013)

GSTS Pathology LLP, R (on the application of) v Revenue & Customs [2013] EWHC 1823 (Admin) (21 June 2013)

The court refused to redact commercially sensitive information from the judgment because the information was relevant to the reasoning, had been referred to in open court, and there were no compelling reasons to depart from the principle of open justice.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1823 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: GSTS Pathology LLP; Claimant: Serco Ltd; Claimant: Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust; Defendant: Commissioners for Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Interim Relief, Application for Redaction of Judgment Prior to Publication
Outcome
Application for redaction/refusal to publish certain information dismissed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Confidentiality in Judgments, Interim Relief, Publication of Judgments
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Open Justice Confidentiality in Judgments Interim Relief Publication of Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GSTS Pathology LLP

Claimant

Serco Ltd

Claimant

Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

Claimant

Commissioners for Revenue & Customs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Interim Relief, Application for Redaction of Judgment Prior to Publication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commercially sensitive information should be redacted from a judgment before publication
  2. 2 Scope of the court's inherent jurisdiction to control publication of judgments

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to redact commercially sensitive information from the judgment because the information was relevant to the reasoning, had been referred to in open court, and there were no compelling reasons to depart from the principle of open justice.

Court Disposition

Application for redaction/refusal to publish certain information dismissed

Orders

  • The transcript of the judgment will be published without alteration.