Pressdram Ltd v Whyte & Anor (Rev 1)

Under CPR rule 5.4C(2), a non-party seeking court documents must identify the documents or classes of documents with reasonable precision. A general entitlement to inspect the court file is inappropriate.

Where documents have been placed before and referred to by the court, the open justice principle creates a strong default in favour of access, particularly where access is sought for a proper journalistic purpose. The court must consider any countervailing reasons and conduct a fact-specific proportionality assessment. Where no such reasons are advanced or apparent, access should be granted to the specified documents.

Pressdram Limited, the publisher of Private Eye, applied under CPR rule 5.4C(2) for access to documents in earlier directors’ disqualification proceedings against Craig Whyte and David Anderson. The application initially sought general inspection of the court file, but was amended during argument to identify specified pleadings, evidence and written submissions.

The court considered the required degree of specification, the open justice principle, and whether any countervailing reasons justified withholding access.

1. Application granted. Pressdram was entitled to copies of the specified documents, subject to paying the copying costs. No general entitlement to inspect the file was ordered.
2. Rule 5.4C(2), read with paragraph 4.3 of Practice Direction 5A, requires an applicant to identify the document or class of documents sought and the grounds relied upon. The documents specified in the amended application were sufficiently precise for the purposes of the rule and Practice Direction.
3. The approach in Dian AO v Davis, Frankel & Mead [2005] 1 WLR 2951 was applied. An applicant should identify the documents sought with reasonable precision, although a class is acceptable where there would be no practical difficulty in deciding whether a document fell within it.
4. The principle stated by Lord Justice Toulson in R (on the application of the Guardian News and Media Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court & The Government of the United States of America and Article 19 [2012] EWCA Civ 420 applied. Access to documents placed before and referred to by a judge should ordinarily be permitted under the open justice principle. The case for access was particularly strong because the purpose was proper journalism.
5. The court considered possible countervailing reasons. Mr Whyte and Mr Anderson had chosen not to participate and had advanced none; nor did the material disclose any such reason. A balancing exercise therefore disclosed no factor opposing access.
6. The application for costs against Mr Whyte was refused. Pressdram had needed the court’s permission, and the unopposed application was treated as part of the ordinary costs of running its magazine.