Open justice, closed files: Court issues first guidance on Filing Modification Orders, Various Claimants v Entain Plc [2026] EWHC 1511 (Comm)

Quick Read

Six months after the introduction of a new practice direction designed to make it easier for the public to access court documents, a Commercial Court judge has issued the first ruling restricting public access to documents under this practice direction. 

On 17 June 2026, Mr Justice Trower gave judgment considering whether the Court should make a Filing Modification Order (FMO) which would legally restrict access to court documents that would otherwise be freely available to members of the public under the new practice direction.  The case provides the first judicial guidance on the topic.

The Practice Direction on Public Access to Court Documents

CPR Practice Direction 51ZH (the Practice Direction) is currently operating in the Commercial Court, the London Circuit Commercial Court, and the Financial List (specialist courts dealing with large commercial and financial disputes), on a two year trial basis from 1 January 2026 until 31 December 2027. It introduces a system designed to make it easier for the public to access certain court documents by default, unless a Filing Modification Order (FMO) is made.  

Under the pilot, certain documents that are used in or referred to at a public court hearing automatically become "Public Domain Documents". Parties must upload these documents to a publicly accessible section of the court's CE File portal, within a set timeframe. Once uploaded, they are available for anyone to access, including members of the public who are not involved in the case.  Previously, a member of the public who wanted access to these documents often had to make a formal application to the court. Now they are available to download from CE file for a small fee, furthering the principle of open justice. 

What is an FMO?

An FMO is the mechanism by which a judge can override the new default of open access, where there is a good reason to do so.  The court can make an order preventing public access to a document entirely, removing the obligation to upload the document, requiring parts of the document to be redacted before it is made public, extending the time for uploading, or making any other order the court considers appropriate. It can do so on its own initiative, or at the request of any party to the case or any person named in the relevant document.

The Entain Case

The underlying facts of the case are complicated but relevant. It involves several linked claims brought by numerous shareholders against Entain Plc (which owns well-known brands such as Ladbrokes and Coral) in the Financial List.  The shareholders claim that they relied on information Entain published to the market when buying or selling shares, alleging that it was misleading and that they lost money as a result.  Separately, a number of individuals named in the shareholders' case have been charged with criminal offences arising from the same alleged misconduct.

Three separate criminal trials have been listed for dates between February 2028 and March 2029 with the shareholders' civil trial not scheduled to begin until 2029, after the criminal proceedings have concluded.

The context is relevant to understanding the rationale for the application for an FMO, and the court’s approach to assessing whether this constituted a ‘good reason’.  The application for an FMO was made by the CPS which argued that disclosures in the civil proceedings could jeopardize the fairness of the related criminal trials.

The Court’s decision

The court noted that the Practice Direction itself does not set out specific criteria for when an FMO should be granted, and there is no existing judicial authority on the point. The pilot was however introduced following concerns being expressed by the Supreme Court in Dring v Cape Intermediate [2020] AC 629 (Dring), about public access to court documents.

In deciding whether to grant an FMO, the court must balance the public interest in open justice against the risk of harm that unrestricted disclosure might cause. This includes potential harm to other legal proceedings or to the legitimate interests of individuals.

The court held that where public access to documents creates a risk of prejudicing ongoing criminal proceedings, that should weigh heavily in favour of granting an FMO. Where there is substantial overlap between civil and criminal cases dealing with the same events, the court must seriously consider restricting public access.

All parties agreed that without the FMO, a significant amount of information would need to be redacted from any documents made public in this case. The parties in the shareholders' case were not well placed to judge what needed to be blacked out to protect the criminal trials, and it would be unfair to put that burden on them. Further, it would not normally be the CPS's job to police what is disclosed in a related civil case.

Accordingly, the court made an FMO removing the obligation to upload any Public Domain Documents to the public filing system in this case, requiring the parties to upload a placeholder notice for each document instead.  The placeholder notices must identify what the document is, when it was used in court, and who filed it, whilst informing the public that they have the right to apply to the court for access to the full document.  If anyone applies for access, the CPS and the criminal defendants must be notified promptly so they can participate in any discussion about what information should be withheld to protect the criminal trials.

The court also made a Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) to prevent media reporting that could prejudice the criminal trials.

The court concluded that the combination of the FMO, the RRO, and scheduling the civil trial after the criminal trials had finished, together struck the right balance between open justice and protecting the criminal proceedings.   The combination of measures sought to reflect and bolster the important public policy that as much as possible of proceedings such as the shareholder proceedings, should be conducted in public. As Dring makes clear, transparency in the conduct of litigation is an important part of the process of ensuring that justice is done.

Key takeaway

This is the only known decision to date on the factors to be taken into account when deciding an FMO application.  The principles are clear: when deciding FMO applications, the court will be guided by existing principles on open justice set out in Dring, starting from the new default position under the Practice Direction that that public access is the norm. Where there is a real risk that making documents public could compromise parallel criminal proceedings, the court will give significant weight to that concern.

The ruling establishes precedent for removing the obligation to publish documents entirely in such cases, while still allowing members of the public to apply for access, with safeguards to ensure affected parties are notified and can respond.

FMOs remain the exception to the default position under the Practice Direction and are unlikely to be granted glibly.  Parties wishing to seek an FMO are likely to need to demonstrate significant risk of prejudice, such as compromise of connected proceedings, before the court will consider departing from the default position of open access to documents.

________________________________________
This briefing is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.