WH Holding Limited v E20 Stadium LLP

CPR r.5.4C establishes a mandatory open-justice default under which a non-party may obtain a statement of case once the rule’s jurisdictional conditions are met. Departure requires clear, fact-sensitive justification. Any restriction must be necessary to secure the proper administration of justice or protect a relevant private interest, and must be proportionate and no more extensive than required. Confidential financial information may justify redaction rather than withholding the statement of case altogether. A court should consider the range of orders available under CPR r.5.4C(4), and preserve the ability of a non-party to seek an unredacted copy on notice.

The claimant applied for an order restricting non-party access to documents on the court file under CPR r.5.4C(4). The proceedings were brought under Part 8. The defendant had acknowledged service but did not attend the application and remained neutral.

The court considered which documents were statements of case, the effect of the open-justice principle, the circumstances in which access could be restricted, and whether confidential material justified withholding or editing the relevant document. The claimant also sought permission to appeal the resulting order.

1. Documents available to non-parties. CPR r.5.4C(1) creates the general rule that a non-party may obtain a statement of case from the court records. The relevant trigger was the defendant’s filing of an acknowledgement of service under CPR r.5.4C(3), not prior judicial engagement with the claim.
2. The Part 8 claim form was a statement of case. The defendant’s response document and the written evidence were not statements of case within CPR r.2.3(1), and could be obtained only with permission under CPR r.5.4C(2). The document headed “Details of claim pursuant to Part 8” was to be treated as part of the claim form because CPR r.8.2(b) required the claim form to state the questions, remedies and legal basis of the claim.
3. Restriction of access. CPR r.5.4C(1) embodies the open-justice principle identified in R (Guardian News and Media Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618. The default may be displaced only with clear justification. The relevant circumstances are fact-sensitive and non-exhaustive, but may include the matters in CPR r.39.2(3)(a)–(g). Protection must be necessary to secure the proper administration of justice or protect the applicant’s interests, and must be proportionate.
4. The approach in Cider of Sweden Limited v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 76 (TC) was not accepted as governing this application. That decision concerned an inherent jurisdiction under a different procedural regime, whereas CPR r.5.4C has direct effect in the civil courts to which the CPR applies.
5. The claimant established confidentiality only in relation to the monetary sums in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 12 and 14(a) of the details of claim. The proportionate order was to redact those figures under CPR r.5.4C(4)(c) and/or (d), while leaving access to the remainder and preserving an application on notice for an unredacted copy under CPR r.5.4C(6).
6. Permission to appeal was refused. There was no real prospect of the Court of Appeal reaching a different conclusion. Any further application for permission had to be made to the Court of Appeal.

This was a first-instance decision of the High Court. The court made a limited redaction order and refused permission to appeal. Any further application for permission was directed to the Court of Appeal.