Litigation in the Spotlight: Navigating Reputational Risk Under the Access to Court Documents Pilot

Introduction

On 1 January 2026, the civil courts threw open the doors to commercial litigation. As part of efforts to advance the principle of open justice in the civil courts, the Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot (the Pilot) came into force and will run for a two-year period. It will cover proceedings in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court of the KBD and the Financial List (Commercial Court and Chancery Division).

The premise is simple but its implications are seismic: anyone can now access key litigation documents with minimal effort. Skeleton arguments, witness statements, expert reports—all available online via the court filing system to anyone willing to pay an £11 fee. This follows a broader trend toward open justice, building on the October 2025 changes to journalist reporting restrictions.

How the Pilot Works

The Pilot captures skeleton arguments, written submissions, witness statements and expert reports (including exhibits). Judges may order additional key documents into the public domain if they are deemed critical to the understanding of the hearing. Parties can also agree additional documents.

Access is straightforward: documents are filed to the public domain section of CE-File, the Court’s document access platform. Whilst a small fee is still payable, no application is required. Publication is the default, and parties seeking to redact of withhold documents must apply for a ‘Filing Modification Order’, and those are granted sparingly.

Heightening the Media Spotlight on a Dispute

The Pilot is still in its infancy, but the warning signs are clear. Technically, this is not a radical departure from the previous rules; non-parties have always been able to obtain court documents. However, given the Pilot has effectively removed one of the barriers to obtaining documents, it will be easier for journalists (or indeed any member of the public) to access court documents. This it is likely to result in an uptick in disputes reporting, and therefore significantly magnifies reputational and commercial risks for parties in litigation.

Another interesting consideration is the combination of increased transparency and AI. Increased access to documents will allow journalists and other interested third parties to trawl court documents using AI tools in order to glean information. If, for example, a major publisher is looking to publish a big story that will generate significant revenue, they will not hesitate to download large tranches of documents and run them through AI systems to mine for keywords, connections and damaging revelations. This tactic is already widely operated in practice and has been already been described as ‘the perfect storm’ by legal and PR professionals.

Greater access fuels in-depth reporting and investigative journalism. It creates more story angles as reporters spot strategic behaviour in court filings. It also drags peripheral players into the spotlight—parties who expected to remain in the background may suddenly find themselves front and centre in media coverage.

Risks & Opportunities: Two Sides of the Same Coin

The pilot creates both risks and opportunities, depending on a party’s position. Access doesn’t equal understanding. Increased access means increased ability for publishers or third parties to misunderstand or misrepresent the position, particularly when cherry-picking information from complex legal documents without an understanding of the bigger picture.  Filings can be – and will be - lifted out of context to generate headlines or drive hostile narratives, whether deliberately or recklessly.

Larger organisations (or those that are particularly reputation-sensitive) may look to alternative forums to serve their claims, such as arbitration, where their interests in preserving privacy and reputation may be better served. In contrast, smaller businesses may find increased visibility of case details advantageous, particularly if they aim to highlight the conduct of a large or more powerful partner or to leverage a settlement.

On the subject of settlement, the Pilot may influence settlement strategy significantly. Documents only become publicly available once referred to in open court, meaning that the threat of adverse publicity from a public hearing or trial could be used as leverage in settlement discussions. Pre-trial settlement may become more attractive as parties seek to prevent sensitive information from becoming publicly accessible. 

Looking beyond the media, more access brings commercial dynamics into sharper focus in terms of competitors or any transactions or acquisitions that a party may be engaged in.  For example, investors, employees, competitors and campaigners will be able to review case materials more easily. The business implications extend far beyond the courtroom.

For legal representatives, strategy must evolve. The fact that written submissions and evidence will be publicly available will doubtless impact the way in which parties put their case. Counsel may shift more sensitive points to oral argument to avoid them becoming part of the public record. Heightened attention should be paid to drafting with the expectation that materials may be scrutinised by third parties.

Key takeaways: the Reputational Impact of Litigation

The Pilot represents a substantial shift for reputation management in commercial litigation. Parties should assess their litigation strategy early, identify documents that may require protection, and consider whether alternative dispute resolution mechanisms might better serve their confidentiality and reputational interests. Early planning and proactive engagement with confidentiality issues will be essential to managing exposure under the new regime. 

Organisations should bring in specialist legal and PR advice early. Protecting your reputation throughout the dispute lifecycle means thinking beyond the media to all stakeholders: investors, employees, customers, regulators and competitors. In the new era of open justice, litigation strategy and reputation strategy have become synonymous, and parties must plan accordingly.