Key Facts
- •Pump Court Chambers Ltd (PCC) sought proprietary and freezing injunctions against Gillian Brown (Mrs. Goodfield), its former credit control manager, for allegedly stealing £2.75m over five years.
- •Mrs. Goodfield admitted wrongdoing.
- •Initial hearings were held in private with an anonymity order.
- •PCC requested continuation of private hearings and anonymity at the inter partes hearing.
- •The judge refused both requests, finding no justification for continued privacy given Mrs. Goodfield's admission.
- •The judge granted the injunctions and disclosure orders.
- •The judge addressed the arguments for private hearings and anonymity orders based on the principles of open justice.
Legal Principles
Open justice is the general rule in court proceedings.
CPR 39.2; Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417; Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UKSC 38
Exceptions to open justice are permitted only if necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and one of the grounds in CPR 39.2(3) is established.
CPR 39.2(3)
The burden of proof to justify a departure from open justice lies on the party seeking the exception.
Viscount Haldane LC in Scott v Scott
Anonymity orders are only made if non-disclosure is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and protect the interests of a person.
CPR 39.2(4)
Outcomes
The judge refused to continue the private hearing.
The judge found that the inconvenience and potential negative consequences for PCC did not outweigh the principle of open justice. The court's object was to decide on the injunctions and disclosure orders, not to protect the Chambers' reputation. While a 'tipping-off' risk was acknowledged, the judge felt it insufficient to justify the exception to open justice given the time elapsed since the initial injunctions.
The judge refused to make an anonymity order.
Given Mrs. Goodfield's admission of wrongdoing, the judge considered an anonymity order unnecessary to protect her interests. The reasons for the anonymity order at the ex parte stage no longer applied.
The judge granted the proprietary and freezing injunctions and disclosure orders.
The judge found a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured the orders, and there was a real risk of dissipation of assets.