Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 819 (10 July 2013)

Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 819 (10 July 2013)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge correctly applied the law by giving proper weight to the open justice principle and balancing it against the applicants' Article 8 rights. The risk of reputational damage, even if serious, did not justify a private hearing or restrictions on media access in the absence of exceptional circumstances or necessity. The appeal was dismissed as the judge's conclusion was inevitable on the facts and law.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 819
Parties
Appellant/petitioner: Global Torch Limited; Respondent/petitioner: Apex Global Management Limited; Respondent: FI Call Limited; Appellant/respondent: HRH Prince Abdulaziz bin Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Appellant/respondent: Emad Mahmoud Ahmed Abu Ayshih; Appellant/respondent: HRH Prince Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Intervener: Guardian News and Media Limited; Intervener: The Financial Times Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Companies Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Private Hearings, Unfair Prejudice Petitions, Article 8 ECHR (privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), CPR 39.2, Access to Court Documents
Company Law Civil Procedure Media Law Human Rights Open Justice Private Hearings Unfair Prejudice Petitions Article 8 ECHR (privacy) +4 more

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Global Torch Limited

Appellant/petitioner

Apex Global Management Limited

Respondent/petitioner

FI Call Limited

Respondent

HRH Prince Abdulaziz bin Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Appellant/respondent

Emad Mahmoud Ahmed Abu Ayshih

Appellant/respondent

HRH Prince Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Appellant/respondent

Guardian News and Media Limited

Intervener

The Financial Times Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Companies Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings in the Companies Court should be heard in private due to reputational concerns and privacy rights under Article 8 ECHR.
  2. 2 Whether restrictions should be placed on media access to court documents.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge correctly applied the law by giving proper weight to the open justice principle and balancing it against the applicants' Article 8 rights. The risk of reputational damage, even if serious, did not justify a private hearing or restrictions on media access in the absence of exceptional circumstances or necessity. The appeal was dismissed as the judge's conclusion was inevitable on the facts and law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for private hearing; proceedings to remain in public.
  • No restriction on media access to court documents.