UK Media Up In Arms Over Law Society Injunction On Retrospective Release Of Court Statements

by Robin Pilgrim, LawAndTax-News.com, London

04 October 2006

UK newspapers and media organisations have been angered by a temporary injunction granted to the Law Society on Friday, which they view as 'gagging' the UK courts.

A new rule which would have taken effect on Monday 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 injunction obtained by the Law Society last week prevented the rule from taking effect pending a full High Court hearing on the matter on Thursday.

Desmond Hudson, Law Society Chief Executive, announced on Monday that:

”The Law Society was granted an urgent injunction on Friday evening to prevent the Court Service from permitting public access to statements of cases filed at court before today. New court rules come into force today permitting public access. The injunction is a temporary one only that will preserve the status quo until Thursday when the High Court will consider the issue fully. The injunction does not apply to statements filed from today."

”While the Law Society supports public access to statements, several of our members became concerned last week that the change would apply not only to new cases but also retrospectively to old cases, many of which have long been closed. The Court Service reversed its position on the interpretation of the rule, putting many clients in the unreasonable position of having to apply to court at very short notice if they wanted statements to remain confidential."

"Court rules must strike a balance between the right to privacy and the public interest in open and transparent justice. Clients who were involved in litigation prior to the new rules had a legitimate expectation that the balance would not suddenly shift around them. At the next hearing, we will be asking the court to consider whether this retrospectivity is fair.”

Recommended