London International Disputes Week 2026: Key Takeaways on Open Justice and the Growing Reputational Stakes of Litigation

At London International Disputes Week 2026 (LIDW 2026), we hosted a panel discussion on SLAPPs, Scrolls & Silencing: Media Law Under the Spotlight, where we explored how increasing transparency in litigation is reshaping risk and strategy.

Open justice: the principle that legal proceedings should operate in an open and public manner, is hardly new. But its practical reach is expanding rapidly, and for those advising on reputation management and litigation strategy, the implications are significant. A series of recent legislative and procedural developments mean that court proceedings are now more visible, more accessible, and more searchable than ever before.

Our panel brought together Claudine Morgan, Jonathan Huth, Hannah Gornall, Ellen Roberts, Samuel Rowe (5RB) and Adam Cannon (Publisher, The Jewish Chronicle; former Legal Director and Head of Legal, The Sun), who shared their perspectives on how open justice is evolving in practice.

The direction of travel: enhanced transparency

The direction of travel is clear. Legislators and the judiciary are actively reinforcing the principle that transparency in litigation serves the public interest. Two developments in particular illustrate this trend: the introduction of anti-SLAPP provisions under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and the Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot, which came into force in January this year and applies to proceedings in the Commercial Court, London Circuit Commercial Court, and the Financial List. Each, in its own way, is designed to ensure that litigation cannot be used as a tool to suppress public scrutiny, and that the materials generated by court proceedings are more readily available to journalists, researchers, and the wider public.

The anti-SLAPP regime targets claims that are abusive or unmeritorious — typically expensive litigation designed to intimidate, silence, or threaten those who have exercised their right to free expression or public participation, whether whistleblowers, journalists, academics, or activists. The first judicial application of these provisions, Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd in March 2026, demonstrated the courts' willingness to invoke them and to dispose of defamation claims at an early stage (see a previous article we have written on this case here).  The message to would-be claimants is pointed: inflated damages claims, disproportionate procedural tactics, and any suggestion of abusive litigation will attract serious scrutiny. Although the current statutory regime is confined to claims connected with economic crime, the Government’s own consultation has acknowledged the possibility of extending it more broadly — a prospect that legal advisers and potential litigants would be wise to keep firmly in mind.

Increasing visibility of court documents

The Access to Public Domain Documents Pilot, meanwhile, works from the other end: rather than deterring misuse of proceedings, it makes the outputs of litigation more visible. Under the scheme, journalists and members of the public can access key litigation documents — including witness statements and skeleton arguments — via CE-File, with publication now the default. Parties seeking to redact or withhold documents must apply for a Filing Modification Order. The practical effect is that disputes which might previously have attracted limited attention are now far more likely to be reported on and scrutinised.

Reputational risk in the age of AI

These developments do not exist in isolation. The rapid advancement of AI tools adds a further dimension. Journalists, campaigners, competitors, and other interested parties can now search court documents quickly and surface material that would previously have been difficult or time-consuming to locate. Strategic behaviour in litigation, allegations made in pleadings, or evidence referring to individuals and entities in the background of a dispute may be identified and reported with far greater speed and efficiency than before. For parties concerned about reputation, the risk profile of litigation has fundamentally changed.

It would be wrong, however, to view these developments purely through a defensive lens. Greater transparency can cut both ways. Smaller businesses, for example, may be able to use the increased visibility of court documents to highlight the conduct of a larger or more powerful counterparty, or to strengthen their position in settlement discussions. Open justice, in this sense, can be a leveller as well as a risk.

What is undeniable is that the old approach — treating litigation strategy and reputation management as separate workstreams — is no longer tenable. The question for litigants and their advisers is not whether court proceedings will attract public attention, but how much, and how quickly. Those operating in the reputation management space must now factor transparency into every stage of the litigation lifecycle, from the decision to issue proceedings, to the content of pleadings, to the conduct of disclosure and trial. For some, particularly larger organisations with greater reputational exposure, more private dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration may increasingly warrant serious consideration.

Today more than ever, the courtroom is a public stage — and litigation strategy must be planned accordingly.

For those who were unable to attend the session and would like to receive a copy of the recording, please contact events@crsblaw.com.