Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Mr Graham Dring (for and on behalf of The Asbestos Victims Support Group)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Hale |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKSC 38 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 29 July 2019 |
[2019] UKSC 38
Lady Hale, President
Lord Briggs
Lady Arden
Lord Kitchin
Lord Sales
Appellant/Cross-Respondent
Michael Fordham QC
Geraint Webb QC
James Williams
(Instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP)
Respondent/Cross-Appellant
Robert Weir QC
Jonathan Butters
Harry Sheehan
(Instructed by Leigh Day)
Intervener
(The Media Lawyers Association)
Jude Bunting
(Instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP)
Heard on 18 and 19 February 2019
Lady Hale, DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
As Lord Hewart CJ famously declared, in R v Sussex Magistrates, Ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259, “… it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. That was in the context of an appearance of bias, but the principle is of broader application. With only a few exceptions, our courts sit in public, not only that justice be done but that justice may be seen to be done. But whereas in the olden days civil proceedings were dominated by the spoken word — oral evidence and oral argument, followed by an oral judgment, which anyone in the court room could hear, these days civil proceedings generate a great deal of written material — statements of case, witness statements, and the documents exhibited to them, documents disclosed by each party, skeleton arguments and written submissions, leading eventually to a written judgment. It is standard practice to collect all the written material which is likely to be relevant in a hearing into a “bundle” — which may range from a single ring binder to many, many volumes of lever arch files. Increasingly, these bundles may be digitised and presented electronically, either instead of or as well as in hard copy.
This case is about how much of the written material placed before the court in a civil action should be accessible to people who are not parties to the proceedings and how it should be made accessible to them. It is, in short, about the extent and operation of the principle of open justice. As Toulson LJ said, in R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court (Article 19 intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 420; [2013] QB 618 (“ Guardian News and Media”), at para 1:
“Open justice. The words express a principle at the heart of our system of justice and vital to the rule of law. The rule of law is a fine concept but fine words butter no parsnips. How is the rule of law itself to be policed? It is an age old question. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes — who will guard the guards themselves? In a democracy, where power depends on the consent of the people governed, the answer must lie in the transparency of the legal process. Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse.”
The circumstances in which this important issue comes before the court are unusual, to say the least. Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd (“Cape”) is a company that was involved in the manufacture and supply of asbestos. In January and February 2017, it was the defendant in a six-week trial in the Queen's Bench Division before Picken J. The trial involved two sets of proceedings, known as the “PL claims” and the “CDL claim”, but only the PL claims are relevant to this appeal. In essence, these were claims brought against Cape by insurers who had written employers' liability policies for employers. The employers had paid damages to former employees who had contracted mesothelioma in the course of their employment. The employers, through their insurers, then claimed a contribution from Cape on the basis that the employees had been exposed at work to asbestos from products manufactured by Cape. It was alleged that Cape had been negligent in the production of asbestos insulation boards; that it knew of the risks of asbestos and had failed to take steps to make those risks clear; indeed, that it obscured, understated and unfairly qualified the information that it had, thus providing false and misleading reassurance to employers and others. Cape denied all this and alleged that the employers were solely responsible to their employees, that it did publish relevant warnings and advice, and that any knowledge which it had of the risks should also have been known to the employers.
Voluminous documentation was produced for the trial. Each set of proceedings had its own hard copy “core bundle”, known as Bundle C, which contained the core documents obtained on disclosure and some documents obtained from public sources. The PL core bundle amounted to over 5,000 pages in around 17 lever arch files. In addition, there was a joint Bundle D, only available on an electronic platform, which contained all the disclosed documents in each set of proceedings. If it was needed to refer to a document in Bundle D which was not in Bundle C, it could immediately be viewed on screen, and would then be included in hard copy in Bundle C. The intention was that Bundle C would contain all the documents referred to for the purpose of the trial, whether in the parties' written and oral opening and closing submissions, or in submissions or evidence during the trial.
After the trial had ended, but before judgment was delivered, the PL claims were settled by a consent order dated 14 March 2017 and sealed on 17 March 2017. The CDL claim was also settled a month later, before judgment.
The Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK (“the Forum”) is an unincorporated association providing help and support to people who suffer from asbestos-related diseases and their families. It is also involved in lobbying and promoting asbestos knowledge and safety. It was not a party to either set of proceedings. On 6 April 2017, after the settlement of the PL claims, it applied without notice, under the Civil Procedure Rules, CPR rule 5.4C, which deals with third party access to the “records of the court”, with a view to preserving and obtaining copies of all the documents used at or disclosed for the trial, including the trial bundles, as well as the trial transcripts. This was because the Forum believed that the documents would contain valuable information about such things as the knowledge of the asbestos industry of the dangers of asbestos, the research which the industry and industry-related bodies had carried out, and the influence which they had had on the Factory Inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive in setting standards. In the Forum's view, the documents might assist both claimants and defendants and also the court in understanding the issues in asbestos-related disease claims. No particular case was identified but it was said that they would assist in current cases.
That same day, the Master made an ex parte order designed to ensure that all the documents which were still at court stayed at court and that any which had been removed were returned to the court. She later ordered that a hard drive containing an electronic copy of Bundle D be produced and lodged at court. After a three day hearing of the application in October, she gave judgment in December, holding that she had jurisdiction, either under CPR rule 5.4C(2) or at common law, to order that a non-party be given access to all the material sought. She ordered that Mr Dring (now acting for and on behalf of the Forum) should be provided with the hard copy trial bundle, including the disclosure documents in Bundle C, all witness statements, expert reports, transcripts and written submissions. She did not order that Bundle D be provided but ordered that it be retained at court.
Cape appealed, inter alia, on the grounds that: (1) the Master did not have jurisdiction, either under CPR rule 5.4C or at common law, to make an order of such a broad scope; (2) to the extent that the court did have jurisdiction to grant access, she had applied the wrong test to the exercise of her discretion; and (3) in any event, she should have held that the Forum failed to meet the requisite test.
The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal because of the importance of the issues raised. In July 2018, that court allowed Cape's appeal and set aside the Master's order: [2018] EWCA Civ 1795; [2019] 1 WLR 479. It held that the “records of the court” for the purpose of the discretion to allow access under CPR rule 5.4C(2) were much more limited than she had held. They would not normally include trial bundles, trial witness statements, trial expert reports, trial skeleton arguments or written submissions; or trial transcripts. Nevertheless, the court had an inherent jurisdiction to permit a non-party to obtain (i) witness statements of witnesses, including experts, whose statements or reports stood as evidence-in-chief at trial and which would have been available for inspection during the trial, under CPR rule 32.13; (ii) documents in relation to which confidentiality had been lost under CPR rule 31.22 and which were read out in open court, or the judge was invited to read in court or outside court, or which it was clear or stated that the judge had read; (iii) skeleton arguments or written submissions read by the court, provided that there is an effective public hearing at which these were deployed; and (iv) any specific documents which it was necessary for a non-party to inspect in order to meet the principle of open justice. But there was no inherent jurisdiction to permit non-parties to obtain trial bundles or documents referred to in skeleton arguments or written submissions, or in witness statements or experts' reports, or in open court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melanie Newman v Southampton City Council
...that each apply to Ms Newman's application. The paradigm case on the principle of open justice is Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd [2019] UKSC 38 (“ Dring”). In a judgment of the court, Baroness Hale at para.[2] identified the issue as being how much of the written material placed be......
-
Opinion of Lord Carloway, The Lord President in the reclaiming motion by Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General
...3 WLR 1174; [1984] 3 All ER 935; [1985] ICR 14; [1985] IRLR 28; 82 LSG 437; (1984) 128 SJ 837 Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd [2019] UKSC 38; [2019] 3 WLR 429; [2019] 4 All ER 1071; [2020] 1 All ER (Comm) 95; [2019] HRLR 15; [2019] EMLR 24; [2019] 7 WLUK 435 Edwards v Cruickshank (18......
-
(first) The British Broadcasting Corporation; (second) Times Newspapers Limited; (third) News Group Newspapers Limited For Judicial Review
...had been explained in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2014 SC (UKSC) 151, Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd [2019] 3 WLR 429 and MH v Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland 2019 SC 432. In modern times the media’s constitutional role in ensuring open justice was more 8 impo......
-
Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry Qc Mp And Others Against The Advocate General
...for the Lord Advocate and the respondent. This was on the basis of the principle of open justice (Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings [2019] 3 WLR 429 and R (Guardian News and Media v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2013] QB 618). There required to be public scrutiny of the way in which the ......
-
Third Party Access To Pleadings In The FTT
...and its application to this case. The FTT's starting point was the Supreme Court's decision in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 ('Dring'). The FTT drew a number of general principles from Dring, the most material of may be summarised A court or tribunal must consider ho......
-
Third Party Access To Pleadings In The FTT
...and its application to this case. The FTT's starting point was the Supreme Court's decision in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 ('Dring'). The FTT drew a number of general principles from Dring, the most material of may be summarised A court or tribunal must consider ho......
-
UK Supreme Court Widens the Scope for Non-party Access to Documents Filed in English Litigation
...are strictly necessary for any trial bundle or if they can be included in a distinct and easily separable sub-section. Footnotes 1) [2019] UKSC 38 2) English Court of Appeal clarifies the rules regarding non-party access to documents filed with the Charles Wynn-Evans...
-
Non-Party Access to Court Documents
...of any hearing (for which there will be a fee), unless the hearing or any part of it was held in private. Click here to download PDF. 1 [2019] UKSC 38 2 Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (for and on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) [2019] UKSC 38, paragraph 41. 3 R (......