温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/cox-v-jones
点击访问原文链接

Cox v Jones - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Cox v Jones - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Cox v Jones Reference: [2004] EWHC 1006 (Ch)

Court: Chancery Division

Judge: Mann J

Date of judgment: 6 May 2004 Summary: Public inspection of court documents - CPR 32.13- Media application- Witness statements

Appearances: Adam Wolanski KC (Applicant) 

Instructing Solicitors: Times Legal Department for the Applicant

Facts Lurid allegations were contained in a witness statement and statements of case but were not relied upon. Parts of the Defence were accordingly struck out. On the basis that Counsel knew the new ambit of the case nothing was struck out of the witness statement. On day 6 of the trial the media sought inspection of the witness statement. The Judge ruled it was available in principle save insofar as redaction was appropriate. The media applied for disclosure, arguing that inspection was permitted under the rules as a matter of course.

Issue Whether a witness statement levelling scandalous allegations which were not being pursued should be open for inspection by the media and in what form.

Held The burden is on a party objecting to inspection to make an application under CPR 32.13. The ‘interests of justice’ required limited restrictions on the right of inspection. The interests of third parties who would be tainted by the allegations in the witness statements qualified for such a restriction. A balance was struck by utilising initials of third parties, leaving the tenor of the allegations in place as they were part of the Defendant’s case.

Comment Modern civil litigation and its emphasis upon evidence being given in writing often means that some of the strictures that would have been insisted upon had a witness being giving oral evidence (particularly in front of a jury) are not observed. Here, although allegations had been struck out from the statements of case, no application had been made to excise them from the relevant witness statement.

Links Judgment

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* CommentsThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录