Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring
The principle of open justice gives the court power to allow non parties access to documents used in court proceedings.
Facts
Cape was a defendant in a long trial about its liability for asbestos related diseases, which settled before judgment. Mr Dring, on behalf of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum, applied for copies of documents that had been used at the trial, including witness statements, expert reports and written submissions, because they would help other people with asbestos claims to understand the history of the asbestos industry.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the court has an inherent power to allow access to documents placed before it, which derives from the constitutional principle of open justice. Lady Hale said that the purposes of open justice are to enable public scrutiny of the way in which courts decide cases, to hold the judges to account and to enable the public to understand how the justice system works and why decisions are taken. A non party seeking access must explain how granting it will advance the open justice principle, and the court must then balance that against any risk of harm to others. The case was sent back to the High Court to decide which documents should be disclosed.
Related cases on judiciary, legal profession and access to justice
- Airey v Ireland (1979) 2 EHRR 305
- Arthur J S Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615
- Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 62, [2008] 1 WLR 2416
- Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, [2011] 2 AC 398
- Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2003] UKHL 35, [2004] 1 All ER 187
- Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451
- Medcalf v Mardell [2002] UKHL 27, [2003] 1 AC 120
- R (Gudanaviciene) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, [2015] 1 WLR 2247
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
