Law Society Secures Temporary Victory In Dispute Over Opening Of Court Files

by Robin Pilgrim, LawAndTax-News.com, London

10 October 2006

The UK's High Court last Thursday ruled in favour of the Law Society in a dispute over the retrospective opening of court files.

A new rule which would have taken effect on October 2 would have allowed people not involved in cases, such as journalists, to gain access to information involving details of claims and defences without first seeking permission from a judge.

It was further decided that the right to inspect court documents in civil cases should apply retrospectively, and it was this provision which especially concerned the Law Society.

The Law Society obtained a temporary injunction last week preventing the rule from taking effect pending last Thursday's High Court hearing on the matter.

In a move welcomed by the Law Society, the High Court declared that the old rules should continue to apply to statements filed before October 2 until the Department for Constitutional Affairs introduces amendments to the new rules.

The DCA, for its part, has agreed that problems caused by the retrospective effect of new rules to open up court files need to be rectified.

Commenting after the High Court hearing, Desmond Hudson, Law Society Chief Executive, announced that:

”This decision protects the privacy of many people in old disputes including employment, blackmail and discrimination cases. Many of these cases were settled before reaching court with people filing statements on the understanding that they would remain confidential. The DCA’s previous decision that the new rules applied retrospectively put these people's privacy at risk. It also gave solicitors insufficient time to take instructions from their clients and, if necessary, take steps to protect their privacy."

”Court rules must strike a balance between the right to privacy and the public interest in open and transparent justice. We appreciate there was considerable pressure from the powerful media lobby to have access to past records but our members wanted us to intervene on their clients’ behalf on such a fundamental issue. We believe the new rules on access to statements for future cases are fair.”

Recommended