Taranissi, R (on the application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

An order permitting a non-party to inspect documents in a court file may be made where the documents were deployed in open court and are likely to be relevant to collateral litigation. The fact that inspection is sought to assist a party in separate proceedings does not prevent the order. The court should also distinguish such an application from an application for disclosure in the collateral proceedings and from a general fishing expedition.

The BBC, a non-party to an earlier application for permission to seek judicial review, applied for copies of documents in that court file. The documents were potentially relevant to the BBC’s defence of justification in libel proceedings brought by Mr Taranissi. The judicial review proceedings had been compromised after permission was granted following a contested hearing. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority did not oppose the application subject to undertakings. Mr Taranissi indicated an intention to oppose but did not attend or pursue that opposition. The issue was whether inspection of the file should be permitted under CPR 5.4C(2).

1. Application granted. The BBC’s application for access to the identified documents in the judicial review court file was allowed.
2. The application was not a fishing expedition. The BBC had identified the general class of documents sought, and the documents were likely to contain information relevant to issues of justification in the libel proceedings.
3. The fact that the requested inspection was primarily intended to assist collateral litigation did not prevent an order. The authorities established that disclosure for that purpose could be ordered.
4. The documents had been put before the judge at a public permission hearing. Although the judge’s short judgment did not refer expressly to many of them, they had been deployed as relevant material and would have been considered directly or indirectly in reaching the decision. Public access to such material was relevant to understanding why the order had been made.
5. The application was distinct from an application for disclosure in the libel action. There was therefore no sufficient reason to adjourn it to the judge dealing with the libel proceedings. The order was made as requested, with provision for written guidance if implementation difficulties arose.

Not an appeal. The judgment describes an earlier permission hearing before Mr Justice Mitting, where permission for judicial review was initially refused on paper but later granted after a contested hearing. The judicial review proceedings were subsequently compromised.