WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2024] EWHC 817 (Comm) (20 March 2024)

WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2024] EWHC 817 (Comm) (20 March 2024)

Only the monetary sums in specified paragraphs of the details of claim document constitute confidential information justifying redaction; the general rule of open access applies to the remainder. The order is proportionate and necessary to protect confidentiality without unduly restricting open justice.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 817 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: WH Holding Limited; Defendant: E20 Stadium LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Application / Judgment on Application for Restriction of Access to Statements of Case; Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application granted in part; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Open Justice Principle, Access to Court Documents, Confidentiality in Litigation, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Part 5 and Part 8
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Open Justice Principle Access to Court Documents Confidentiality in Litigation Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) Part 5 and Part 8

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WH Holding Limited

Claimant

E20 Stadium LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Application / Judgment on Application for Restriction of Access to Statements of Case; Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-parties should be restricted from obtaining copies of statements of case under CPR r.5.4C(4)
  2. 2 Whether confidential financial information justifies redaction from court documents supplied to non-parties
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Only the monetary sums in specified paragraphs of the details of claim document constitute confidential information justifying redaction; the general rule of open access applies to the remainder. The order is proportionate and necessary to protect confidentiality without unduly restricting open justice.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Financial amounts in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 12, and 14(a) of the details of claim document to be redacted from copies supplied to non-parties.
  • Permission to appeal refused; further application must be made to the Court of Appeal.