Clarkson Plc v Person Or Persons Unknown, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, March 06, 2018, [2018] EWHC 417 (QB)

Issuing Organization:Queen's Bench Division
Actores:Clarkson Plc v Person Or Persons Unknown
Resolution Date:March 06, 2018
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 417 (QB)

Case No: HQ17M04321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 6/03/2018

Before :

MR JUSTICE WARBY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pinsent Masons for the Claimant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Justice Warby :

  1. Today I am granting an application by the claimant for default judgment in this action, and making a final order for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from communicating or disclosing to any third party or in any other way using certain information, designated in the order as ``the Confidential Information''. The order includes a number of provisions containing derogations from open justice.

  2. At the request of the claimant, I have dealt with the application without a hearing. I should briefly explain the basis for doing that.

  3. Open justice is a vital principle. But not every application needs to be dealt with at a hearing. Many are not. CPR 23.8(a) allows for an application to be dealt with ``on the papers'' where the parties consent to the order. Rule 23.8(b) allows this to be done where the parties consent to the application being dealt with in that way. Important orders can properly be made without a hearing on this basis. In PJS v News Group Newspapers Limited, I made a final order for a non-disclosure injunction in a media case on the papers. I did so by consent, in reliance on CPR 23.8(a) and (b). The parties had not only agreed the terms of the order, they had also expressly agreed that it should be dealt with on paper. Nonetheless, I considered whether proceeding in that way was in keeping with the open justice principle. I decided that it was, provided I gave a public judgment explaining what had been done and why.

  4. In that judgment, [2016] EWHC 2770 (QB), I said at [1]-[2] that there was no need for a hearing,

    ``But I am giving this public judgment, for three reasons. The first is to ensure that the principle of open justice is respected, and that the derogations from open justice that I am granting are publicly explained. As explained in the Master of the Rolls' Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders [2012] 1 WLR 1003:

    ``9. Open justice is a fundamental principle. The general rule is that hearings are carried out in, and judgments and orders, are public: see Article 6(1) of the Convention,...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL