Open Justice in the UK: what overseas litigants need to know

Nichola Evans, Partner, Head of Dispute Resolution

The starting point in the UK is that justice is administered in public: court proceedings are generally open, and what is said in court may ordinarily be reported.

In recent years, there has been increased focus on how this principle operates in practice. In 2024, the Lady Chief Justice established the Transparency and Open Justice Board. This was followed in January 2025 by the publication of the Open Justice Guidance, which provides a framework for the treatment of court documents, hearings and judgments.

Two recent developments are particularly relevant to overseas litigants and may influence decisions about whether and how to pursue litigation in the UK.

Practice Direction 51ZH

Practice Direction 51ZH (PD51ZH) was introduced at the beginning of 2026 as a two-year pilot scheme.

Under the pilot, members of the public may select and obtain specified court documents through the CE-File system. The pilot currently applies in the Commercial Court, the London Circuit Commercial Court and the Financial List. It therefore captures a substantial proportion of high-value commercial litigation in England and Wales.

Legally represented parties must file certain “Public Domain Documents”, including:

• Skeleton arguments
• Written submissions
• Witness statements
• Affidavits
• Expert reports
• Other specified documents

Paragraph 12 of PD51ZH allows any person, whether a party or non-party, to obtain copies of these documents. In our experience, this has generated increased interest in cases: parties may be contacted by the press or by others with an interest in the litigation. The practical effect is that the public can now access a significantly wider range of material than was previously available.

A party may apply for a Filing Modification Order (FMO) to restrict access to documents, and the court may also make an FMO of its own initiative. PD51ZH does not prescribe the circumstances in which such an order should be made.

The issue was considered in Various Claimants v Entain Plc [2026] EWHC 1511 (Comm), in which Mr Justice Trower provided guidance. The claim was brought by shareholders who alleged that they had relied on misleading information when purchasing shares. Some of those shareholders also faced criminal trials listed between February 2028 and March 2029, before the civil trial. The Crown Prosecution Service applied for an FMO on the basis that disclosure of documents in the civil proceedings could prejudice the criminal trials. Having balanced the competing rights, the court granted the order because public access could compromise the criminal proceedings. The decision nevertheless confirms that transparency and open justice remain the starting point; an FMO is likely to be the exception rather than the rule.

Anonymisation Orders

The decision in National Crime Agency v GKC (No 2) [2026] EWHC is also noteworthy. Several media organisations applied to lift an anonymisation order concerning an individual who was subject to an Unexplained Wealth Order obtained by the National Crime Agency. The court lifted the order. Although it accepted that this would have a detrimental impact on the respondent, that impact did not outweigh the principle of open justice or the public interest in access to the judgment.

Key Takeaways

Overseas litigants and their advisers should keep the following points in mind:

1. Public access extends beyond pleadings. Key documents may be obtained through CE-File by interested parties, the press or overseas lawyers seeking information relevant to cross-border disputes.
2. The increased transparency may create both risks and opportunities. Where a matter is highly confidential, advisers should consider carefully what is included in documents such as skeleton arguments and whether a confidentiality order or FMO may be required. Conversely, searches of CE-File may identify useful material relating to parties or connected cross-border claims.
3. At the contract-drafting stage, parties should consider whether an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, such as arbitration, would be more appropriate where confidentiality is important and future public litigation could create commercial or reputational concerns.

For more information contact a member of our Dispute Resolution team.