Proposals to allow non-parties access to court documents in civil proceedings must be made on a case-by-case basis to protect individuals’ rights, personal injury specialists have said. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers was responding to a consultation on amending Civil Procedure Rule 5.4c, which covers non-party access to documents such as skeleton arguments. 

The proposed new rule, drawn up following the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment in Cape v Dring, would allow non-parties to obtain skeleton arguments, witness statements and expert reports from cases without the court’s permission, unless a party makes an application for an order to restrict access. Confidential medical records would not be released.

Civil litigators have already raised concerns about the proposals. Kim Harrison, vice president of APIL, warned against taking a ‘blanket approach’ to disclosure. 

'Cases need to be assessed individually to ensure there is a balance between the principles of open justice and the need to protect the privacy and rights of individuals involved in proceedings,’ she said. 'In particular, vulnerable parties and children must be protected from having personal or sensitive details released publicly, so as not to add to their pain and suffering when they have turned to the courts for redress.'  

Kim Harrison

Harrison warns against taking a ‘blanket approach’ to disclosure

The proposals would also create a huge workload because documents will have to be thoroughly checked to ensure that confidential and sensitive information is not included in anything released to non-parties, Harrison said. 'If lawyers are to carry out this work, it will create a substantial cost associated with redacting information from documents that should not be in the public scope. It will be extremely time consuming to ensure there is no data breach to a party’s confidential information.

'Similarly, if court staff are to be responsible for redactions in documents, they will be swamped with work. Injured people are already enduring severe delays to their county court cases due to under-staffing and major funding shortages,' she added.

The consultation on the proposed new version of CPR5.4c closed on 8 April. The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is expected to publish the final version later this year. 

 

This article is now closed for comment.