Chan v Alvis Vehicles Ltd & Anor

After proceedings in open court have ended, the High Court retains jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Rules rule 5.4(5)(b) to permit a non-party to obtain documents filed in the court record. The discretion should ordinarily favour access to material read or treated as evidence in open court, including witness statements standing as evidence in chief. Modern written evidence should not reduce public access compared with oral evidence. A newspaper’s interest may include investigating a potentially newsworthy story. General unease about publicity, or unsupported assertions of confidentiality and damage, is insufficient to outweigh open justice.

The underlying commission claim by Chan against Alvis Vehicles Ltd settled during trial by Tomlin Order. The Guardian Newspapers, which had obtained the claimant’s skeleton argument and identified a potentially newsworthy factual matter, applied after settlement for access to pleadings and witness statements in the court file. The claimant was neutral and Alvis opposed the application.

The application was advanced under Civil Procedure Rules rules 32.13 and 5.4 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The central issues were whether the court retained jurisdiction after the underlying case had ended and, if so, whether permission should be granted under rule 5.4(5)(b).

1. The application was granted under Civil Procedure Rules rule 5.4(5)(b) in respect of the Particulars of Claim, Defence, Reply and six witness statements. The requests for further information and the documents described as exhibits were excluded because they were not in the court records.

2. The High Court remained “the court” for the purposes of rule 5.4(5)(b), although the underlying proceedings had settled. The court still held the court file, and rule 5.4 contained no temporal restriction requiring the application to be made before the proceedings ended. The timing of an application could affect the exercise of discretion, but there was no unreasonable delay here.

3. Rule 32.13(1) did not authorise inspection of witness statements after the trial, because it made them open to inspection only during the course of the trial. That limitation did not prevent access under the separate power in rule 5.4(5)(b). The inherent jurisdiction was not required where the specific procedural provisions did not apply.

4. The court applied the principles of open justice. Documents read by the judge, including pleadings and witness statements confirmed as evidence in chief, should generally be accessible even where modern practice meant that they were not read aloud. The press played a critical role in making open justice effective, and its interest could extend to a current news story rather than a report of the proceedings themselves.

5. Alvis produced no evidence of specific damage from disclosure. Unwelcome publicity following proceedings in open court, and general assertions of confidentiality, did not justify refusal. Alvis was directed to pay The Guardian’s costs on the standard basis, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. No permission to appeal was sought.