The Law Society has won an unprecedented gagging order, stopping all courts in England and Wales from releasing documents about the cases that they have considered.

Mr Justice Irwin, a High Court judge, granted the professional body for solicitors an injunction banning courts from releasing information under reforms due to take effect yesterday. It is thought to be the first time that the entire court system has been subject to a gagging order, and unheard of for the Law Society to sue the courts.

Until now most details of court actions have been kept confidential to anyone not involved in the dispute itself.

But from yesterday, the public and media would have been granted access to any statement of case filed at court, including particulars of a claim and the defence, giving them details of the dispute. Lawyers feared that the change was to be applied retrospectively.

In a surprise move on Friday, the society — through the law firm Shillings — won an injunction from Mr Justice Irwin to stop the rules coming into effect until a full hearing on Thursday.

Media organisations are preparing to contest the order. Gill Phillips, a lawyer with Times Newspapers, said: “We have had absolutely no notice of this move by the Law Society, even though we are clearly affected.”

Desmond Hudson, the chief executive of the Law Society, said yesterday: “The Law Society was granted an urgent injunction on Friday evening to prevent the Courts Service from permitting public access to statements of cases filed at court before today. While the Law Society supports public access to statements, several of our members became concerned last week that the change would apply not only to new cases but also restrospectively.” He said that the Courts Service had reversed its interpretation of the rule, “putting many clients in the unreasonable position of having to apply to court at very short notice if they wanted statements to remain confidential”.

A spokesman for the Courts Service declined to comment.

Mark Stephens, a media lawyer with Finers Stephens Innocent, said: “This move is a scandalous waste of money. Court proceedings ought to be public so that the media can report in a sensible and proper way. If people choose to resolve their disputes in the courts, which are a public forum, then so be it. Otherwise they can go to arbitration and the details can be kept confidential.”

Rupert Elliott, a media barrister from One Brick Court Chambers, said he did not think that the injunction would be sustained.

“The Law Society appears to be acting on behalf of solicitors who have filed documents under the old regime. But if anyone is at risk here, it is third parties — yet it is not their interests the society is protecting.”

At present the public has access only to copies of served claim forms, which can contain very little information.

If copies of other documents are required, a formal application has to be made, showing good cause as to why they should be released.

Greg Lowson, litigation partner at Pinsent Masons, a law firm, said: “Litigants and their lawyers will now have to be more careful about how their case is committed in writing — for instance, sensitive information may have to be listed in separate schedules and not filed with the statements of a case, as these should not be available to the public.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers