Jacapo Morretti v Davide Leone & Anor

Applications to restrict access to statements of case require a fact-specific balancing exercise. The court must weigh the purposes of open justice and the value of the information to public understanding against the risk of harm to the judicial process or legitimate interests, including privacy, confidentiality and commercial confidentiality.

Exceptions to open justice must be applied strictly. Peripheral confidential information may be redacted where disclosure adds little to public understanding and the legitimate interest in confidentiality outweighs that value. Allegations concerning individuals do not justify redaction merely because they may be embarrassing or sensitive, particularly where the court will not determine their truth and accurate reporting can be trusted. A medical report attached to particulars of claim is not itself a statement of case for the purposes of Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 5.4C(1)(a).

The claimant brought proceedings in the High Court alleging that bullying and harassment by the first defendant caused personal injury. The defendants applied to restrict non-party access to the court file, seeking redactions concerning clients, a commercial adviser, and current and former employees and members of the second defendant. They also sought a declaration concerning the status of a medical report attached to the particulars of claim.

The proceedings had been stayed pending related Employment Tribunal proceedings. The central issues were whether the requested restrictions were justified under the open justice principle and whether the medical report formed part of a statement of case for the purposes of rule 5.4C.

1. Open justice and balancing exercise. Departure from open justice is exceptional and must be regarded strictly. The court must conduct a fact-specific balancing exercise between the purposes of open justice and the potential value of the information in advancing those purposes, on the one hand, and the risk of harm to the judicial process or legitimate interests on the other.
2. Client and commercially sensitive information. The evidence established an arguable case that the client and adviser information was commercially confidential. The identities were peripheral to the bullying and harassment allegations. Their disclosure would add little to public understanding of the proceedings, whereas disclosure could cause significant harm to legitimate confidentiality interests. The requested redactions were therefore granted.
3. Employees and members. The allegations concerned statements allegedly made by the first defendant, rather than wrongdoing by the individuals identified. The court would not determine the truth of those underlying allegations. The risk of public misunderstanding did not justify restricting access, and the public’s ability to understand legal constructs and accurate reporting should not be underestimated. The requested redactions in this category were refused.
4. Medical report. The schedules formed part of the particulars of claim because they had been expressly incorporated. The medical report stood differently. Practice Direction 16, paragraph 11.1 required it to be attached to the particulars of claim. Under rule 5.4C(1)(a), a non-party could not obtain an attached document as of right, so the declaration sought was redundant.
5. The parties were invited to submit a draft order giving effect to the judgment.