An application by JK, the son of Z, for access to various court documents and expert reports relating to declarations made in November 2018. JK was not a party to those proceedings (even though he could have been) and Morgan J had found that Z lacked capacity to manage his property and financial affairs. Application refused.
The judgment is of interest as it tackles the position of what documents may be made available under the court's inherent jurisdiction and the principle of open justice, particularly where the proceedings were held in private. As Morgan J notes at :
"this is an unusual case in which to attempt to apply the open justice principle. The original proceedings were dealt with in private. The application for disclosure was heard in private. JK does not apply for the public to have access to any documents in these proceedings. It follows that if I were to accede to his application, this would not enable the public to scrutinise the way in which courts decide cases nor would it allow the public to understand the issues and the evidence adduced. In many respects, this case is not about open justice at all. Instead, it is an application by one individual for information about what happened in the proceedings where any such information will remain private"
At  he also gives a useful summary of the principles derived from the Supreme Court decision in Dring which recently covered these issues. In the light of the application of those principles to this case, the judgment may be relevant in other cases, in particular, in the Court of Protection. Accordingly, Morgan J suggested that this judgment should be published in open court in anonymised form with the agreement of the parties.
Read the judgment in full on Bailii
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
Useful books from Bath Publishing