Key points for consideration:
- Anticipate publication early. Map which documents are likely to become public and factor reputational impact into case strategy from the outset.
- It will be critical to advise your clients about potential publication and bring in PR specialists earlier on sensitive and high-profile disputes.
- Draft with dual audiences in mind. Ensure submissions are precise for the court but also clear and balanced for the public, mindful that tone and context will carry reputational weight.
- Align communications with legal process. Build coordinated plans for media, investor and employee messaging around key hearing dates and filings, with joint sign-off processes to avoid one being caught short of the other.
- Invest in preparation. Consider training for legal teams on reputational risk, and bring in specialist PR support where needed to protect and strengthen client narratives.
From 1 October 2025, the Commercial Court and the Financial List in England & Wales will begin a pilot that makes key litigation documents public by default. For the first time, skeleton arguments, witness statements, expert reports and other materials central to hearings will appear on a public-facing side of the CE-file. The reform will change how litigation plays out in public view, with major implications for communications and reputation management.
The pilot builds on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Dring v Cape, which recognised transparency as central to open justice. Until now, the press and public could only access documents through a formal application process, which acted as a natural brake on scrutiny. From October, openness becomes the starting point and parties must justify confidentiality. Media outlets, investors, competitors and campaigners will be able to review case materials easily and quickly. Documents that once circulated only in court will reach a much wider audience.
This shift alters the nature of drafting. Submissions must now serve two audiences: the judge and the public. Precision for the court is still paramount, but clarity of tone and context for non-specialists will carry reputational weight. Because judges are expected to lean toward disclosure, lawyers should assume that most documents used in hearings will be published.
The risks are obvious. Filings may be lifted out of context to generate headlines or drive hostile narratives. Material published in England and Wales can be reused internationally, exposing clients to further legal and regulatory challenges. Older documents may also come into scope if they are relied on in hearings after October, shortening preparation time. And when pressure to respond is high, the risk of breaching contempt rules or reporting restrictions increases.
There are, however, clear opportunities. Some claimants may benefit from visibility that strengthens their bargaining power. Corporates that align external messaging with what appears on CE-file can use transparency to build trust with stakeholders. The process should also create more predictability, since redactions can be handled through streamlined Filing Modification Orders rather than ad hoc negotiations.
Byfield has already helped clients navigate similar dynamics. In some cases, we have worked to amplify the impact of court documents once they became public. In others we have acted quickly to contain the risk of selective quotation. The difference now is that disclosure will no longer be exceptional; it will be routine. If communications planning does not keep pace, clients’ risk being defined by narratives created by others, whichever side of the dispute they sit on.
The lesson is clear: it is better to manage disclosure than to be managed by it. Clients should prepare risk registers that map the documents most likely to appear in public. Drafting must anticipate both legal and reputational audiences. Media, investor and employee communications need to be timed to anticipated filings, with joint sign-off processes between legal and PR teams in place.
The October pilot will make commercial litigation more visible than ever. It strengthens open justice but increases reputational exposure. Those who prepare early and embed communications into case management will be best placed to navigate the shift. In an environment where the courtroom and the public arena are increasingly connected, reputation management is no longer an optional extra. It is part of litigation strategy itself.
Dina Hudson
Senior Consultant, Disputes and Investigations
