“A PERSON WHO SUBMITS A WITNESS STATEMENT… MUST KNOW THE COURT MAY EXPRESS VIEWS AS TO WHAT THE WITNESS HAS SAID”: COURT CONSIDERS APPLICATION FOR DELAYING PUBLICATION OF A JUDGMENT

We are looking at a short postscript to the case examined in the previous post.  The judge made observations that were critical of a witness who had made a statement in support of an injunction. The claimant asked for the publication of the judgment be delayed so that the witness would not be “surprised”.

(Guitarists can use a delay pedal. Litigants are not so lucky..)

“A person who submits a witness statement knowing it is for use in court proceedings must know the court may express views as to what the witness has said.”

THE CASE

Apollo XI Ltd v Nexedge Markets Ltd [2025] EWHC 1488 (KB) Mr Justice Saini.

THE FACTS

The judge had handed down a judgment which discharged an injunction obtained without notice.  In giving judgment the judge was critical of the conduct of the claimant and of a statement made in support.  An application was made to delay the publication of the judgment to give the witness in question time to “prepare for publication”.

THE POSTSCRIPT ON THE APPLICATION TO DELAY PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT

The application was given short shrift.

IX. Postscript: delaying public release of the judgment

121.Following circulation of a draft of this judgment for corrections, Mr Cammerman KC and Mr Davis made an unusual written application as follows. They asked me to delay the publication of this judgment (not the formal handing down) because Mr Liu of Web Pi “…is not a party to the litigation and is therefore unaware of this judgment and its contents he should, as a matter of fairness, be given an opportunity to prepare for publication and should not, as a third party in a different jurisdiction, be surprised by a judgment of this nature“. Apollo proposed a delay until 23 June 2025.

122. I rejected this application. It is part of the principle of open justice that the court’s reasons for its decisions be made public at the same time as notified in final form to the parties. That is achieved by making copies of a judgment available to anyone who wants a copy at court following hand down or as is more usual these days by release to the National Archives. There might be rare exceptions to the principle that the public are entitled to see a final judgment at the same time as the parties. An example might be where the court’s reasons may put into the public domain material which a party says should remain private or confidential pending appeal. This is not such a case. There is nothing special about Mr Liu’s position. He has given evidence in a witness statement in this case which I have commented upon. I have not drawn any final conclusions as to the accuracy of that evidence. Those conclusions must await trial and his oral evidence, if he is called as a witness. A person who submits a witness statement knowing it is for use in court proceedings must know the court may express views as to what the witness has said. This judgment, subject to the confidentiality of Appendix II, will become public today.