IBM United Kingdom Limited v Lzlabs GmbH & Ors

Open justice is a fundamental principle of English law, but it is not absolute and can be derogated from to protect confidential information.

Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440, Al Rawi & Others v The Security Service & Others [2011] UKSC 34, R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420

The court must balance the competing interests of open justice and the protection of confidential information when ordering disclosure.

Riddick v Thames Board Mills Limited [1977] QB 881

The designation of documents as confidential during disclosure is not conclusive for the purpose of the trial. The burden is on the party seeking to maintain confidentiality to justify it.

None explicitly cited, but derived from discussion in sections 33-37

CPR 31.22 provides protection against misuse of disclosed documents, but may not be sufficient for commercially sensitive information used in court.

CPR 31.22

The court must consider the administration of justice, including the parties' ability to understand the evidence and the practicalities of the trial.

None explicitly cited, but derived from discussion in section 36

Confidential information is private information not in the public domain, communicated with an obligation of confidentiality. It's a relative, fact-sensitive concept.

Bamford v Manitou (above) at [37]-[42]

The definition of 'trade secret' under the Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2018 provides further guidance.

Article 2 of the Trade Secrets Directive and Regulation 2 of the Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2018