Corner House Research & Anor, R (on the application of) v Director of Serious Fraud Office & Anor

Under CPR 5.4C, a non-party is entitled, subject to the court’s power to restrict access, to obtain the claim form, acknowledgment of service and detailed grounds in judicial review proceedings. “Defence” in the definition of “statement of case” is not confined to a technical Part 15 defence. The rules must be construed purposively and consistently with open justice. Public access is particularly important in judicial review because such proceedings concern the exercise of public power. Sensitive material may justify an application for restricted or edited disclosure.

Three media organisations sought a declaration that they were entitled to inspect an acknowledgment of service and detailed grounds for contesting a judicial review claim. The Ministry of Justice maintained that those documents were outside the definition of “statement of case” in CPR 2.3(1) and could be disclosed only with permission. The issue was whether the references to a claim form and defence in CPR 5.4C included the judicial review equivalents required by Part 54.

1. Declaration granted. A non-party was entitled to obtain from the court record the claim form, acknowledgment of service and detailed grounds for contesting a judicial review claim under CPR 5.4C. Documents annexed to those materials were not included automatically.
2. The expression “defence” in CPR 2.3(1) was not to be given a technical meaning confined to Part 15. Part 54 requires an acknowledgment of service to contain a summary of the grounds for contesting the claim and requires detailed grounds after permission. Those documents were, in substance, the defendant’s defence.
3. The rules should be construed purposively. The approach in YD v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 1 WLR 1646 supported applying an appropriate construction where the language permitted it. A restrictive construction would frustrate the open-justice purpose of the amendments and produce anomalies, including withholding the reasons relied on when permission was refused.
4. Judicial review claims raise matters of public concern, so the case for access was at least as strong as in private litigation. The default position was disclosure, subject to a positive request by a party for an embargo, restriction or editing under CPR 5.4C(4).
5. The declaration applied to claims filed after 2 October 2006. For documents lodged before the judgment was publicised, defendants were to have an opportunity to object, with the court office giving seven days where practicable. The Ministry was given 14 days to amend its guidance. There was no order as to costs, and permission to appeal was refused.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission to appeal was refused by the High Court.