Qatar Investment and Projects Development & Anor v Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. & Ors

The court may order that part of a hearing be conducted in private where the evidence and circumstances justify that course. Such an order does not automatically require the resulting judgment to be redacted. Redaction should be considered after the draft judgment is circulated, upon any application by the parties. Evidence may remain on the complete court file, while access by non-parties can be controlled by requiring applications to be made on notice. Where the permitted use of documents in enforcement proceedings raises a distinct issue, the court may reserve that issue for further argument.

The claimants’ application concerned the handling of evidence contained in the ninth witness statements of Mr Tapper and Mr Aboutaam, access to the court file, and the use of documents exhibited to the Aboutaam evidence outside the proceedings. The defendants sought a private hearing, advance redaction of the judgment, removal or restriction of the evidence on the court file, and restrictions under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Mr Justice Garnham determined the immediate procedural orders and reserved the issue of use in enforcement proceedings, particularly in other jurisdictions.

1. Private hearing. The part of the proceedings dealing with the Aboutaam and Tapper evidence was to be heard in private pursuant to CPR 39.2(3). The court considered that course proper and appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Judgment and redaction. The court declined to order immediate redaction of the judgment. The judgment would be produced in draft in the usual way, after which any application for redaction could be considered. The court declined to anticipate the result of any such application.
3. Court file and non-party access. The evidence was not to be removed from the court file. The court regarded it as important that the file remain complete. Instead, any application by a non-party for copies of the evidence from the court records was to be made on notice to the parties.
4. Use of documents outside the proceedings. The court reserved its decision under CPR 31.22(2). The live issue was whether the claimants could use the document in enforcement proceedings, especially enforcement proceedings in other jurisdictions.
5. Costs. Costs were reserved until conclusion of the case as a whole.