Held, application granted in part. A departure from the very clear default principle in CPR r 5.4C(1) required clear justification. The circumstances that might justify a departure were acutely fact-sensitive and were not closed but were likely to include and probably most likely to be established by reference to one or more of the matters relevant to the court’s power to hold a hearing in private, as set out in CPR r 39.2(3)(a)–(g). Given the underlying reasons for the general rule, it was likely to be departed from only if and to the extent it was shown to be necessary to do so in order to both secure the proper administration of justice and/or to protect the interests of the party whose application was being considered. Even if in principle it was shown that some intervention was necessary, any such intervention must, by definition, be no more than was proportionate, namely the minimum interference with the general rule necessary to protect the interests of the applicant. Subject to those qualifications, in principle if a statement of case contained material shown to be confidential or which, by its nature, was confidential and it was shown, or could be readily inferred, that publicity would damage that confidentiality, then the court might consider making one of the orders identified in CPR r 5.4C(4). In the present case, much of the details of claim could not sensibly be regarded as confidential, but there were monetary sums referred to in certain paragraphs that constituted confidential or sensitive private information. The appropriate balance between the interests of the individuals in keeping their financial information confidential and the interests of the public in the maintenance of open justice was to be struck by redacting the monetary sums set out in the paragraphs identified (paras 11–14).