Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Reasoned Judgment delivered: 28 th February. (The Commissioner sitting with Jurats Rumfitt & Potter).
Application by the Plaintiff for an Order that the hearing of the action, starting on 28 th February, 2000, be in camera .
On Tuesday, 22 nd February I heard and granted an application by the Plaintiff for the trial of this action to be heard in camera - that is in private, without the public or press being present. It seemed to me desirable at the time that my decision in this matter should be made known to the Plaintiff in advance of the trial so that she would know what to expect when the trial itself began. I now give my full reasons for that decision.
The application was not opposed by the Defendant. But the making of such an exceptional order does not depend merely on the consent of the parties: I had to be satisfied that it would be right to make such an order.
Because of the importance of the matter I asked (i) that the Plaintiff's request for an in camera hearing to be made the subject of a formal application; (ii) that as much of the trial material, including the reports of the experts who are to be called on behalf of the Plaintiff, should be made available to me in advance of the hearing and (iii) that the parties' representatives should appear before me on the formal hearing of the application.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.