Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Liam Harron & Anor
[2023] UKUT 191 (AAC)
Derek Moss v The Upper Tribunal
15 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1414
Court of Appeal
A writer wanted court papers to write about a case. The court said he should get them unless there's a good reason not to, like a secrecy issue. The lower court didn't give good enough reasons for saying no, so the appeal court overturned the decision.
Key Facts
- •Derek Moss appealed the Upper Tribunal's (UT) refusal to grant him access to written submissions from a case (Harron) before the UT.
- •Moss, a campaigner and writer, argued the refusal infringed his Article 6 and 10 ECHR rights and contradicted Supreme Court precedent in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring.
- •The Harron case concerned a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) matter where the First-Tier Tribunal certified a non-disclosure as contempt; the UT overturned this.
- •Moss sought the written submissions to inform his writing on information rights and contempt proceedings.
- •The UT judge refused access, finding Moss hadn't shown a good reason to advance open justice, and the request was disproportionate.
Legal Principles
Open justice is a cornerstone of the English legal system, aiming for public scrutiny of judicial decisions and public understanding of the justice system.
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417; R v Guardian News and Media Ltd v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420; Kennedy v Charity Commissioner [2014] UKSC 20
The default position is not that non-parties are entitled to all documents referred to in court; they must demonstrate a good reason advancing open justice.
Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38
In assessing non-party access, courts balance the open justice principle's value against risks of harm and proportionality; practicalities and proportionality are key factors, especially for post-trial requests.
Guardian News and Media; Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring
There is no absolute common law right for non-parties to see documents; a low threshold 'good reason' must be met.
Dring
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
The UT judge erred by rejecting Moss's reason for seeking disclosure without explanation. The Court found Moss's reason, though brief, met the low threshold for demonstrating a 'good reason' to advance open justice. No countervailing factors (harm or disproportionality) justified refusal.