- Cited — JC Bamford Excavators Limited v Manitou UK Limited & Anor 2023-07-17
“…Open justice is a fundamental principle of English law. In the landmark case of Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, the House of Lords held that the High Court had no power, even with the consent of the parties, to order that a petition for the annulment of a marriage be he…”
- Cited — JC Bamford Excavators Limited v Manitou UK Limited & Anor 2023-07-17
“…ing their job properly. In A v British Broadcasting Corpn [2015] AC 588, Lord Reed JSC reminded us of the comment of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 475, that the two Acts of the Scottish Parliament passed in 1693 requiring that both civil and criminal cases be heard ‘with open doors’, ‘bore testimony to a…”
- Cited — JC Bamford Excavators Limited v Manitou UK Limited & Anor 2023-07-17
“…pensed openly and in public, and that the media should know, and be able to disseminate, all aspects of court proceedings. That was made clear in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, and is now reinforced by articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. But even this fundamental principle must occasionally yield to other factors, such as the need t…”
- Cited — Michael Clifford v Millicom Services UK Limited & Ors. 2023-01-26
“…ce to do so: see Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49, [2019] AC 161 [14] (Lord Sumption), citing the foundational common law authority of Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 446. I see nothing in Rule 50 or the context to suggest that when enacting the “interests of justice” limb of the Rule the draftsman intended to extend or to …”
- Cited — The Executors of HRH Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh (Deceased) v Guardian News and Media 2022-07-29
“… we have already alluded. As GNM submits, the purposes of open justice include winning and retaining public confidence in the court’s processes (Scott v. Scott [1913] AC 417 at page 463), deterring inappropriate behaviour by the court, neutralising any suggestion of a cover up, and the preservation of a free press (see Lord Steyn i…”
- Cited — CDE v NOP 2021-12-14
“…court hearing is to be in public. This reflects the long-standing and well-established principle of open justice going back to the leading case of Scott v Scott[1913] AC 417. More recently, the reasons for this general rule were summarised by Lord Woolf MR in R v Legal Aid Board, ex parte Kaim Todner [1999] QB 966 at 977:…”
- Cited — XXX v Camden London Borough Council 2020-11-11
“…reflects the fundamental rule of the common law that proceedings must he heard in public, subject to certain specified classes of exceptions, see Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417. In Scott v Scott, which concerned the publication of a transcript containing details about whether a marriage had been consummated, it was stated that:…”
- Cited — Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police & Ors v Dyer & Ors 2020-10-27
“…[1913] AC 417…”
- Cited — Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police & Ors v Dyer & Ors 2020-10-27
“…[1913] AC 417.…”
- Cited — Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police & Ors v Dyer & Ors 2020-10-27
“…[1913] AC 417,…”
- Cited — Moss v Information Commissioner 2020-05-15
“…ies emphasise a test of necessity: see JIH at [21(4)], cited above; Lord Dyson at [11] in Al-Rawi v Security Service [2012] 1 AC 531 (SC), citing Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 (HL):…”
- Cited — Moss v Information Commissioner 2020-05-15
“…“ 11. The open justice principle is not a mere procedural rule. It is a fundamental common law principle. In Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline (p 476) criticised the decision of the lower court to hold a hearing in camera as "constituting a violation of that publicity in the …”
- Cited — L v Q Ltd 2019-08-09
“…ommon law principle of open justice such as R (Guardian News & Media Ltd) v Westminster Magistrates Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618, CA, Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, HL, Pretto v Italy [1984] 6 EHRR 182, ECtHR, R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) (Guardian News & Media Ltd and othe…”
- Cited — L v Q Ltd 2019-08-09
“…The rationale for a general rule that hearings should be held in public was trenchantly stated by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in the leading case of Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, at 477. He quoted first from Jeremy Bentham:…”
- Cited — Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Group) 2018-07-31
“…Lord Shaw in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 at 477 (citing Jeremy Bentham):…”