The court had released a draft of its judgment to the parties under terms as to its use. Journalists on ‘The Lawyer’ had become aware of it, and posted details on its website, in breach of those terms.
Held: Apologies had been made, and the publications withdrawn and there had been no further damage. The court ook no further steps.
Peter Smith J said: ‘It is important that journalists take this on board and appreciate that in the future, if there is a breach which is serious — and I should say that in saying that I am not saying that The Lawyer is in breach, because I have accepted what has been said today — the consequences that might be visited upon such a publication and its journalists might well be quite severe. It is important that this mechanism — which was designed by the courts to aid the parties to litigation — is not abused, because if it is abused, the courts will have to withdraw it, and the result will be that clients will be inconvenienced. The courts may have to revert to the old practice of the clients only becoming aware of the result less than an hour before the hearing. For my part, I did not think that that was a very fair way of dealing with things, but if a privilege is given and is abused by a small number, it is generally taken away. I hope that journalists will bear this in mind in the future when they talk to their sources, who really ought to know better. ‘
Judges:
Peter Smith J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1131 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Baigent and Another v The Random House Group Ltd (The Da Vinci Code) ChD 7-Apr-2006
The claimants alleged infringement of copyright by the defendant publishers and author in the plot and otherwise in the book ‘The Da Vinci Code’. They said that their own work had been copied substantially, using themes and copying language. The . .
Cited by:
See Also – Baigent and Another v The Random House Group Ltd CA 28-Mar-2007
The claimants appealed against a decision that the defendant’s book, the Da Vinci Code, had not infringed their copyright. The judge had found some copying, but not so much that a substantial part had been copied.
Held: Mummery LJ said: ‘In . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court, Media, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242906