The Court of Appeal has permitted an unredacted copy of its October 2022 judgment in family proceedings to be provided to the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), which is considering a complaint by Mr X against the solicitors who acted for Ms X.
In a judgment delivered on 5 May 2023, Maurice Collins J said the court was proceeding on the premise that its permission was necessary. Ms X did not oppose disclosure to the SDT, and her solicitors also sought permission to send the judgment there.
The court declined Mr X’s request to provide the SDT with a copy of the High Court judgment in the family case. Collins J said the High Court was still considering what High Court material, if any, could be disclosed to or retained by the tribunal. The court also refused permission for the October judgment to be sent to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA), saying the complaint against the solicitors appeared to be before the SDT and there was no reason to send the judgment to the LSRA.
The court permitted the solicitors to provide the October judgment to their professional indemnity insurers. That permission depends on the insurers giving a written undertaking to keep the judgment and its information confidential and not disclose it to others, except as necessary to deal with Mr X’s complaint before the SDT. The undertaking must be given to the solicitors and copied to Mr X.
The judgment followed an earlier High Court ruling by Barrett J, dated 21 October 2022, concerning Mr X’s disclosure of material from the family proceedings to several bodies. Barrett J had held that prior High Court leave was required, and made orders requiring Mr X to list recipients and material disclosed and restraining further dissemination. The Court of Appeal noted that the order had not yet been perfected and that further issues remained before the High Court.
Collins J discussed the wording of section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which concerns disclosure of material from proceedings heard in camera to bodies conducting hearings, inquiries or investigations. He expressed the view that subsections 40(6) and (7) appeared to permit certain disclosures without prior court permission, subject to restrictions including a prohibition on publication. But he stressed that the interpretation of section 40 was not before the Court of Appeal and said its orders should not be understood as endorsing Barrett J’s analysis or conclusions.
The court’s ruling addressed permission to disclose the October 2022 Court of Appeal judgment. It did not decide the broader section 40 issue or determine the outstanding High Court questions about material already disclosed.