An application made by a third party to the proceedings for the release of documents after attending the hearing remotely was refused.

This application had an unusual background with a third party, a Ms Cetin, making an application for documents having attended the hearing remotely. Ms Cetin requested permission in August 2025 to attend the hearing of the case remotely and asked for the ET1, ET3, Notice of Appeal and Skeleton Arguments.  She asked for these stating they were standard public documents in appeal proceedings. The applicant had made similar applications on a similar basis, and the Tribunal noted the amount of judicial and administrative time it was taking up. 

The Tribunal set out a series of questions to be answered by the applicant as to why she wished to attend, why she wanted the documents, the number of applications made to the EAT, if she had deleted copies of documents provided in response and if she had posted such material online.

The applicant responded objecting to that Order but did answer some of the question to an extent.  A large part of this was related to the applicant’s assertion of the constitutional right under the principle of open justice.  The applicant had also described herself as a journalist and student journalist but did not state where she was studying or provide any journalistic credentials.   The appellant agreed to the documents being provided whereas the respondent objected.  

The EAT considered the decisions relating to the principle of open justice but held that it does not mean there is a right to be provided with documents after hearings in all cases. Baroness Hale in Dring v Cape [2019] stated that the court has power to allow access, but the applicant has no right to be granted it. It is for that person to explain why they seek such access and how it will advance the open justice principle. Further, Baroness Hale stated that the practicalities and the proportionality of granting the request must be considered.  Adding that it is ‘highly desirable’ that the application is made during the trial.  To that end, Ms Cetin is entitled to be critical of judgments of the EAT but she does not have an unlimited entitlement to obtain documents. The documents sought goes far outside the scope of the Rule 3(10) hearing and they are not necessary to understand the process and decision taken. Accordingly, the order sought for the documents to be released was not made.

An interesting, albeit slightly odd, case. The EAT clearly recognises the fact that its decisions and processes can be critiqued but states that as part of that there is no unfettered access to documentation as part of the proceedings for third parties.  The third-party applicant here outlined the principle of open justice but as stated by the Supreme Court in Dring it is for the applicant to demonstrate how the provision of the documents furthers the principle of open justice and the court would have to considerate alongside other measures such as, inter alia, national security and privacy.

You can read the case in full here.