The High Court refused a request by a respondent in divorce proceedings to disclose three clauses of the parties’ settlement to solicitors acting for him in separate equity and banking cases.
The motion sought permission under section 40(8) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 to discuss clauses 6, 7 and 8 with that separate legal team. The clauses addressed a possible future claim connected with two other proceedings, the applicant’s covenant concerning the respondent’s occupation of premises pending those proceedings, and confidentiality restrictions on referring to the terms in those cases.
The respondent argued that access to the clauses was needed for proper legal advice about possible liability and the occupation arrangement. He submitted that the court could permit limited disclosure under the statutory provision or its common law jurisdiction, subject to safeguards.
The applicant opposed the motion. Her submissions included that the respondent had insisted on the confidentiality clause, had legal representation in the family proceedings, and could obtain advice there. She also argued that the application did not establish a legitimate interest requiring disclosure and could delay other hearings.
Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon said the parties did not dispute the relevant legal principles, though they differed on whether a crucial public interest was required. Applying a balancing of interests, the judge found that disclosure was not in the interests of justice, that no crucial public interest arose or had been shown, and that the respondent had not established grounds for the relief sought.
The judge also noted that the applicant was no longer a party to the equity proceedings, a position confirmed by the Court of Appeal, and that the confidentiality clause had been included at the respondent’s request. The court refused the relief in the notice of motion. It did not grant permission to disclose the clauses to the separate solicitors.