Key Facts
- •Disqualification proceedings were commenced against Alexander Greensill under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
- •The Financial Times applied for access to the Secretary of State's affirmation supporting the claim.
- •The affirmation, including exhibits, totaled over 8,500 pages.
- •A consent order initially restricted access to the affirmation to parties involved.
- •The Financial Times argued for access based on open justice principles and CPR 5.4C(2).
Legal Principles
Open justice
Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd UKSC 38; R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
CPR 5.4C
Civil Procedure Rules 5.4C
Use of witness statements
CPR 32.12; Blue v Ashley [2017] 1 WLR 3630; R (Yar) v Secretary of State for Defence [2021] EWHC 3219 (Admin)
Definition of 'statement of case'
CPR 2.3(1)
Insolvent Companies (Disqualification of Unfit Directors) Proceedings Rules 1987, Rule 3
Insolvent Companies (Disqualification of Unfit Directors) Proceedings Rules 1987
Outcomes
The court ordered the release of paragraphs 10-46 of the affirmation (the 'Statement of Matters Determining Unfitness') to the Financial Times.
This section is analogous to a statement of case, and its disclosure is in the public interest to understand the allegations. The court recognized the need for transparency in judicial proceedings.
The court refused to order the release of the rest of the affirmation.
The court balanced the public interest in open justice against the need to protect the parties' rights, particularly Mr. Greensill's right to prepare his defense without premature media exposure of potentially damaging, unproven allegations. The remainder of the affirmation had not yet been used in court proceedings.