The Bottom Line
- Companies involved in sensitive or high-profile litigation should anticipate proactive and stringent case management from the courts to control media and public access, especially for remote hearings.
- The Court’s default stance against granting remote access to individuals outside England and Wales underscores the legal complexities of cross-border broadcasting. International businesses must be prepared to justify why their remote attendance is in the interests of justice.
- The mandatory undertaking not to record, capture, or broadcast proceedings is a stark reminder of the severe penalties for contempt of court. This is a critical compliance risk for any personnel attending hearings virtually.
The Details
In a significant procedural move, the High Court has laid down strict rules for remote public and media access to a pre-trial hearing in the privacy claims brought by Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, Baroness Lawrence, and other public figures against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail. The order, issued by Mr Justice Nicklin, sets out a formal, deadline-driven process for anyone wishing to observe the January 2026 hearing remotely, signalling a clear intent to tightly manage the intense public interest in the case.
The Court’s reasoning stems from the need to balance the principle of open justice with the practical demands of modern litigation. By creating a clear and structured application process, the judge aims to prevent the disruption and disproportionate use of limited court resources that ad-hoc requests can cause. This proactive approach demonstrates the judiciary’s adaptation to the digital age, ensuring that while technology can increase access, it does not undermine the integrity and efficient operation of court proceedings. The order is a clear blueprint for how courts will manage the spotlight in the digital era.
For business leaders and legal counsel, the key takeaway lies in the specifics. Applicants must provide their full details, their physical location during the hearing, and a robust justification for their attendance. Crucially, they must also provide a legally binding undertaking not to record or share the proceedings. The Court’s explicit caution that it will not normally grant access to those outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales highlights a deliberate effort to maintain control and prevent the unauthorised international dissemination of its proceedings. This serves as a powerful message: remote access is a court-granted privilege, not an automatic right.
Source
High Court of Justice
