Cynthia Nkiruka Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd

MRS JUSTICE HEATHER WILLIAMS: By an application notice of 13 January 2026 (today's date), Griffin Law on behalf of Professor Tooley seek an order that today's hearing before me be held in private, pursuant to CPR 39.2(3)(c), (d) and/or (g). Professor Tooley is the husband or ex-husband of the claimant.

The application was initially made in the belief that I would be dealing substantively with a number of applications today. In the event, for the reasons I explained this morning, the hearing turned into a directions hearing for the majority of the applications that were listed before me. Ms Gattrell, who represents Professor Tooley, did not suggest that part of the hearing should be held in private.

However, I also agreed to deal with a discreet matter this afternoon, namely an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order against The Guardian Newspapers, which is the subject of one of the claimant’s application notices before the court today. Ms Gattrell indicated that she did apply for this hearing to be in private.

I have read the text of the application notice. Reference is made to the rather acrimonious family law proceedings between Professor Tooley and the claimant. It is said there is a concern that the claimant, who has been ordered to return what are described as private documents in those proceedings, will use this hearing to undermine orders that have been made in the family law proceedings by airing in this forum those documents which have been directed to be treated as private and returned to Professor Tooley. That appears to be the main point, although it is also said that the claimant will use this hearing as a vehicle to air allegations against Professor Tooley that are of a personal nature.

The application is opposed by both parties, who are involved in the Norwich Pharmacal application before me this afternoon. That is to say Ms Tooley who is representing herself, and Ms Overman of counsel, who appears for The Guardian.

I refuse the application, I do so for the following reasons. It is very well established that the starting point is that hearings are to take place in public. It is a fundamental tenant of court proceedings and the importance of open justice has been recognised in innumerable decisions which, in the interest of time, I do not propose to cite today. The onus is therefore on Ms Gattrell to establish a basis upon which it is necessary - and the test is one of necessity - to depart from the open justice approach.

I am familiar with the content of the Norwich Pharmacal application, it relates to information that is said to have been provided orally to a Guardian journalist regarding the identity of the person who was the source of information relating to civil proceedings in Luton County Court, concerning an alleged theft. Self-evidently, the Luton County Court proceedings are not the family law proceedings that concern Professor Tooley.

I see no reason whatsoever why private matters relating to the family law proceedings, need be referred to at all in the hearing before me this afternoon and, indeed, if anyone were to start to do so, then I would be very likely to stop them, because it simply would not be relevant. In any event, I note for completeness but without going into the detail, that it is apparent from DJ Nutley's judgment of the 13 March 2025 that it is not the case that all matters relating to the family proceedings have been kept private. Quite a significant amount has been permitted to be made public.

Be that as it may, I simply do not see the inter-relationship between the family proceedings and the civil litigation in Luton County Court and, as such, I do not accept that the concern expressed by Ms Gattrell is well founded in the circumstances. It is entirely up to her, and she is welcome to stay for the hearing this afternoon just to check that nothing arises that will be of concern to her client, but as I have said, I will in any event ensure that nothing irrelevant and inappropriate is referred to.

Ms Overman rightly points out that the claimant, Ms Tooley, has taken a responsible attitude this morning to confidential documents. These are not the same documents as Ms Gattrell is concerned with, but another set of confidential documents which we had to consider this morning. It was dealt with, if I may say so, very sensibly and I have no reason at all to think that this afternoon's hearing would proceed in a different way.

Even if there was any basis at all for the application, which I do not accept that there is (for the reasons I have explained), a court should endeavour to hear as much as possible of the application in public and, therefore, in any event, I would not grant the application in relation to the entire hearing. If there were any relevant overlap, then I would be willing, of course, to consider the detail of whether there was any specific matter which should be heard in private. As that does not arise, I need not go into it.

For all these reasons, I dismiss the application.

Insofar as Ms Gattrell and those who instruct her wish to pursue the application for the court to sit in private in relation to other applications that will be before the court at the future hearing, then that would be a matter for the judge conducting that hearing.