Court transparency pilot: New public access rules from 1 January 2026

A new two-year pilot programme commenced on 1 January 2026, fundamentally altering how third parties can gain access to court documents in certain courts. 

Under this initiative, non-parties, including journalists, business rivals, and members of the public, will find it considerably easier to access important litigation materials such as skeleton arguments, witness evidence and expert evidence. Details can be found on Practice Direction 51ZH – Access to Public Domain Documents and the associated Guidance Note.

These changes support the fundamental principle of open justice which underpins public access to court proceedings and associated documentation. The pilot is designed to promote transparency and public trust in the administration of justice.

While the pilot presents opportunities for greater accessibility, it simultaneously imposes additional obligations on litigants as well as creating new risks. Strategic case management will be critical to navigating these changes effectively. 

This article summarises the main elements of the pilot and its implications for litigation conduct in proceedings to which the pilot applies.

Key changes under the pilot

The existing framework

The existing procedural rules permit non-parties to obtain certain categories of documents from court records without requiring permission, notably statements of case, orders, and judgments delivered in open court. Access is subject to payment of a nominal fee.

Access to other materials, including witness statements and expert reports, necessitates a formal application seeking judicial approval, a step which acts as a stop/go barrier to disclosure.

The pilot framework

The pilot establishes a new category of 'Public Domain Documents' (PDDs) that will become automatically available to the public once they have been deployed or referenced at a hearing conducted in open court within the courts to which the pilot applies. 

Litigants will be obliged to re-file PDDs within prescribed timeframes following their entry into the public domain, whereupon they will be accessible via the 'public view' function on CE-File for a modest charge, without any application being required. 

The pilot initially encompasses the Commercial Court, the London Circuit Commercial Court within the King’s Bench Division and the Financial List (spanning both the Commercial Court and Chancery Division) (together, the Participating Courts).

The following categories of documents constitute PDDs:

• Witness statements/affidavits (including those relied on at trial or at a public hearing of an application but excluding exhibits).
• Expert reports (including exhibits, as they are often necessary to interpret the content of the report).
• Written submissions (including opening/closing submissions and other written submissions which parties rely upon in hearings).
• Skeleton arguments.
• Any other document(s) critical to the understanding of the hearing ordered by the judge to be a PDD.
• Any documents which the parties agree will be PDDs.

The pilot encompasses both interim applications and substantive trials. Importantly, hearings conducted in private fall outside its ambit. Pre-existing frameworks governing access to court documentation remain in force and are unaffected by the pilot.

Where a party seeks to restrict publication of a PDD, be that through redaction or by preventing re-filing in whole or in part, an application must be made to the court for a 'filing modification order' (FMO). Third parties may similarly apply for or challenge such orders.

Non-compliance with the pilot's procedural requirements will be treated seriously by the court and may amount to contempt of court. The court retains powers to compel adherence.

Practical implications

The pilot effects a fundamental reallocation of responsibility: parties must now take affirmative steps to protect sensitive information, rather than relying on third parties being required to seek permission for access. New procedural deadlines for re-filing will apply, with potential sanctions for non-compliance.

Where the accessibility of PDDs raises concerns, early and proactive engagement can assist in managing exposure whilst maintaining compliance with the pilot’s requirements.

Litigants in the Participating Courts should anticipate the following practical impacts, potentially necessitating FMO applications:

• Greater ability for media organisations and market participants to scrutinise litigation activity.
• Heightened reputational exposure and confidentiality risks.

Recommended actions

1. Conduct an urgent assessment of current cases

Litigants should immediately work with their legal advisers to evaluate their litigation strategy and identify documents in current proceedings that may require protection where a public hearing is scheduled after 1 January 2026, thereby triggering re-filing obligations.

For prospective claims not yet commenced, consideration might be given to issuing in a court which is outside the scope of the pilot. Even then, given the possibility of future expansion, there can be no assurance that new proceedings will remain outside scope by the time they reach a substantive hearing.

2. Seek protective orders where appropriate

Parties wishing to restrict publication or apply redactions should apply for an FMO. Applications are best made in advance of the re-filing deadline as the procedure is less formal and the relevant PDDs will not yet have entered the public domain.

Parties should recognise, however, that publication represents the default position, and compelling justification will be required to obtain restrictions.

3. Explore private hearing options

Parties may wish to consider whether a hearing might appropriately be conducted in private to safeguard sensitive information, though it should be noted that the circumstances in which courts will accede to such requests are quite narrow.

4. Exercise restraint in document content

Heightened attention should be paid to drafting with the expectation that materials may be scrutinised by third parties.

5. Evaluate alternative resolution (ADR) mechanisms

Pre-trial settlement may become more attractive as parties seek to prevent sensitive information from becoming publicly accessible. ADR already features prominently in dispute resolution strategy under the Civil Procedure Rules.

A foreseeable consequence of the pilot is an increased appetite for confidential resolution processes such as mediation. 

Further developments

A review of the pilot is expected to take place in summer 2026. Its remit may be extended to additional Business and Property Courts, but a broader rollout to lower courts appears unlikely given the existence of multiple electronic filing infrastructures such as CE-File, the Damages Claims Portal and Money Claims Online.

Next steps

We’re here to help. Please get in touch to discuss this topic further and your specific circumstances.