The High Court has refused BPSG Limited, trading as Stubbs Gazette, an order requiring access to records of unregistered District and Circuit Court judgments. Ms Justice Baker held that the cause books were administrative records created after court proceedings, and that no general legal right required them to be open to public inspection.
The company sought judicial review of the Courts Service’s decision to end access to the records. It argued that the withdrawal breached constitutional and European rights, including open justice, freedom of expression and the right to conduct business. It also challenged the adequacy of the reasons given for the decision.
The Courts Service said it was not legally obliged to provide access and was concerned that the records could be incomplete or inaccurate, including because they might not show whether a judgment debt had been paid or compromised. It also raised possible liability under data protection law.
The judge found that the challenge was brought outside the applicable time limit. The company knew by December 2010 that access had been withdrawn and that its business was affected; the October 2013 reply to a request for reconsideration did not restart time. However, the judge exercised her discretion to extend time, taking account of the company’s decision to await the conclusion of related proceedings brought by Registry Trust and its efforts to resolve the matter informally.
On the substance, the judge distinguished the public announcement of a judicial decision from records prepared by court staff after a hearing. She found that cause books were not part of the adjudicative process. Default judgments entered through an administrative process did not involve a judicial determination, she said. The statutory option to register District and Circuit Court judgments in the High Court did not make registration complete: creditors could choose whether to register them. The judgment noted that High Court judgments registered under the 1844 Act were publicly accessible.
The court also rejected the claimed rights to information under the Constitution and European human-rights instruments, and the argument that EU rules on services required the State to facilitate the company’s business. The judge said those provisions did not create a general obligation on a public body to provide the information sought. She considered the Courts Service’s stated reasons rational and sufficiently explained, while noting that she was not determining the data-protection question definitively.
The judge refused all the relief sought. The judgment did not order the Courts Service to restore access to the cause books.