- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
BPSG Ltd t/a Stubbs Gazette v The Courts Service & Anor
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant is a limited liability company trading as Stubbs Gazette, providing credit referencing, credit management, credit scoring, and related information services since 1828 in The State. The Applicant acquired worldwide publication rights in 2008. The First Respondent is a statutory body established under the Courts Service Act 1998, responsible for managing courts and providing information and facilities related to the courts system. The Second Respondent is a government minister with oversight of the Courts Service, and the Fourth Respondent is sued in a representative capacity.
The Applicant commenced judicial review proceedings on 18th December 2013, seeking certiorari and declaratory relief regarding the withdrawal of access to records of judgments maintained in District and Circuit court offices. The Courts Service had provided ad hoc access to internal court records of unregistered judgments until 2010, when access was withdrawn. The Applicant challenges this withdrawal as unconstitutional and contrary to EU law, arguing it impacts its freedom to provide services and freedom of expression.
The Respondents contend that the withdrawal was lawful, grounded in statutory authority, compliance with Data Protection Acts, and judicial independence. The Applicant was aware of the withdrawal since late 2010 and of related litigation between a third party and the Courts Service, which was compromised in 2013. The Applicant sought explanations and meetings with the Courts Service after the compromise, receiving refusals and reasons for the withdrawal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the withdrawal of access to unregistered judgment records by the Courts Service was lawful or unlawful.
- Whether the Applicant’s judicial review application was brought within the statutory time limits or whether time should be extended.
- Whether the records of judgments in District and Circuit Courts constitute part of the public administration of justice requiring public access under constitutional and human rights principles.
- Whether the refusal to provide access breaches constitutional rights including Articles 34.1, 40.3, 40.6.1, and 43, and EU Treaty provisions related to freedom to provide services and freedom of expression.
- Whether the Courts Service provided adequate reasons for its decision to withdraw access.
- The extent of judicial control over court documents and the applicability of data protection and statutory exemptions to disclosure.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The withdrawal of access to court judgment records breaches constitutional rights to open justice and freedom of expression.
- The Applicant’s business depends on access to such records for credit referencing and related services.
- The failure or refusal to provide access infringes EU Treaty rights to freedom to provide services and freedom of expression.
- The Applicant was not the direct addressee of the 2010 decision and thus the time for judicial review should run from the 2013 correspondence.
- The reasons provided by the Courts Service are inadequate and the withdrawal unjustified given the long-standing provision of access.
- The records sought are part of the public administration of justice and must be available for public inspection.
Respondents' Arguments
- The Courts Service lawfully exercised its statutory powers and complied with obligations under the Courts Service Act 1998 and Data Protection Acts 1988 to 2003.
- The decision to withdraw access was reasonable due to the incomplete and potentially inaccurate nature of the records, and to avoid legal liability.
- The custody and control of court records vest in judges, protected by judicial independence under Article 35.2 of the Constitution, limiting the Courts Service’s ability to grant access.
- The Applicant had knowledge of the decision and related proceedings since 2010 and the application is out of time.
- The records of unregistered judgments are administrative documents, not judicial acts, and not required by law to be publicly available.
- There is no positive obligation on the State to provide the information sought, and no breach of constitutional or EU rights arises.
- The reasons given for withdrawal are rational, sufficiently detailed, and lawful.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| In Re R. Limited [1989] 1 I.R. 126 | Principle that justice shall be administered in public (Article 34.1 Constitution) | Explained the requirement that courts be open to the public so justice is seen to be done. |
| Allied Irish Bank Plc v. Tracey (No. 2) [2013] IEHC 242 | Open administration of justice as a constitutional safeguard and public right to access documents opened in court | Distinguished documents opened in court from administrative records; limited public access to documents effectively read into court record. |
| Roe v. Blood Transfusion Service Board [1996] 3 I.R. 67 | Strict construction of open justice; no concealment from the public | Rejected anonymity in legal proceedings to preserve openness. |
| Doe v. Revenue Commissioners [2008] IEHC 5, [2008] 3 IR 328 | Weighty constitutional nature of open justice overriding privacy rights | Confirmed constitutional imperative of open justice. |
| McKeogh v. Doe & Ors (No. 1) [2012] IEHC 95 | Reporting of defamation proceedings permitted under constitutional open justice | Confirmed constitutional right of public reporting of court proceedings. |
| Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v. Information Commissioner [2001] 3 IR 43 | Judicial control over court business documents and restricted public access | Held disclosure of court transcripts subject to court leave; administrative documents not freely accessible. |
| Chan U Seek v. Alvis Vehicles Limited [2005] 1 WLR 2965 | Public entitled to disclosure of materials entered into public domain during open court proceedings | Supported public and press access to information effectively publicized in court. |
| Breslin & Ors v. McKenna & Ors [2008] IESC 43, [2009] 1 IR 298 | Judicial discretion over release of court evidence and documents | Affirmed requirement of court approval for disclosure of court documents. |
| M.P. v. DPP [2015] IEHC 40 | Mandatory nature of judicial review time limits | Emphasized importance of adhering to statutory time limits in judicial review applications. |
| Mahon v. Post Publications Ltd. [2007] IESC 15, [2007] 3 IR 338 | Principle of proportionality in restrictions on freedom of expression | Outlined necessity that restrictions be no broader than necessary in democratic society. |
| Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary [2009] ECHR 618 | Right to receive information under Article 10 ECHR | Held refusal of access to information violated freedom of expression rights. |
| Kenedi v. Hungary (2009) BRHC 335 | Interference with freedom of expression by denial of access to information | Confirmed unlawful interference where State denies access to information of public interest. |
| Österreichische Vereinigung zur Erhaltung, Stärkung und Schaffung v. Austria (2013) 36 BHRC | Proportionality and necessity of restrictions on access to information | Found complete refusal to provide access disproportionate given State’s information monopoly. |
| Guerra v. Italy (1998) 4 BHRC 63 | Limits on positive obligations to provide information under Article 10 ECHR | Held no obligation on State to collect and disseminate information of its own motion. |
| Gaskin v. United Kingdom [1989] ECHR 13 | Freedom to receive information does not impose positive obligation on State to impart information | Confirmed Article 10 prohibits restricting receipt of information but does not require State to provide it. |
| McD. v. L. [2010] 2 IR 199 | Judicial notice and interpretation of ECtHR jurisprudence | Stressed courts must follow current Strasbourg jurisprudence without adopting speculative trends. |
| McDonald v. Bord na gConn (No. 2) [1965] I.R. 217 | Indicative criteria of administration of justice | Set out conjunctive indicia defining administration of justice processes. |
| O’Connell & Anor. v. The Turf Club [2015] IESC 57 | Affirmation of administration of justice principles | Confirmed principles defining judicial processes and public interest in justice. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analysed the nature of the records sought, distinguishing between judicial acts and administrative functions. It held that the cause books and records of unregistered judgments are administrative documents created after judicial proceedings conclude, not part of the judicial decision-making process itself. Consequently, these records do not fall within the constitutional principle of open justice requiring public access.
The Court further considered statutory provisions, including the Judgments (Ireland) Act 1844 and subsequent legislation, which require registration and public availability only of High Court judgments. Registration of District and Circuit Court judgments is optional, and thus the public register cannot be considered comprehensive. The Court emphasized the judicial independence principle under Article 35.2 of the Constitution, which vests control over court records with the judges, limiting the Courts Service’s authority to grant access.
Regarding the Applicant’s delay in bringing judicial review, the Court found the application was out of time, as the Applicant knew of the withdrawal decision and its impact by December 2010. However, the Court exercised discretion to extend time, acknowledging the Applicant’s reasonable decision to await the outcome of related plenary proceedings brought by a third party and its attempts to resolve the matter informally.
The Court rejected the Applicant’s contention that declaratory relief is subject to a different time limit, interpreting the relevant procedural rules as permitting continuation of judicial review as plenary proceedings, which did not occur here.
The Court addressed the Applicant’s constitutional and EU rights arguments, finding no positive obligation on the State to provide access to the administrative court records. It held that the freedom to provide services and freedom of expression do not impose a duty on the State to facilitate the Applicant’s business by granting access to such records, especially where no discrimination or unequal treatment was shown.
The Court accepted the Courts Service’s reasons for withdrawal, including concerns about data protection liability and the incomplete or inaccurate nature of the records. It found the reasons rational, adequately explained, and consistent with statutory exemptions, including those under the Freedom of Information Act 1997.
The Court noted that legislation establishing a Central Credit Register would address some concerns raised by lenders, further underscoring the inappropriateness of judicially mandating disclosure of the records sought.
In conclusion, the Court refused the relief sought, holding that the Applicant’s rights were not infringed, the decision to withdraw access was lawful, and no obligation existed to provide the information.
Holding and Implications
The Court’s final decision was to REFUSE THE RELIEF SOUGHT.
This ruling means the Applicant’s judicial review challenge to the withdrawal of access to unregistered judgment records was dismissed. The Court confirmed that such records are administrative in nature, not subject to constitutional or statutory rights of public access, and that the Courts Service lawfully exercised its discretion in withdrawing access due to data protection and other legal concerns.
The decision clarifies the limits of the constitutional principle of open justice, judicial control over court documents, and the scope of State obligations under EU freedom of expression and service provisions. No new precedent expanding public access rights to administrative court records was established. The ruling reinforces the importance of statutory frameworks and judicial discretion in managing court record access and confirms the strict application of judicial review time limits, subject to limited extension discretion.
Alert