Baigent v Random House & Anor [2006] EWHC 1131 (Ch) (03 May 2006)

Baigent v Random House & Anor [2006] EWHC 1131 (Ch) (03 May 2006)

Given the explanations and remedial actions by 'The Lawyer', and the lack of significant damage, it is not appropriate to pursue contempt proceedings or seek the identity of sources. The Practice Direction on draft judgments must be respected and future breaches may attract severe consequences.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1131 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Baigent; First Defendant: Random House; Second Defendant: The Lawyer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2006
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division / Judgment on Breach of Draft Judgment Embargo
Outcome
No further action taken; no contempt proceedings initiated.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Draft Judgments, Journalistic Privilege, Practice Direction
Civil Procedure Media Law Contempt of Court Draft Judgments Journalistic Privilege Practice Direction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baigent

Claimant

Random House

First Defendant

The Lawyer

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division / Judgment on Breach of Draft Judgment Embargo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publication of a draft judgment by 'The Lawyer' constituted contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether further action should be taken against 'The Lawyer' for the publication
  3. 3 Whether the identity of the journalist's sources should be sought

Ratio Decidendi

Given the explanations and remedial actions by 'The Lawyer', and the lack of significant damage, it is not appropriate to pursue contempt proceedings or seek the identity of sources. The Practice Direction on draft judgments must be respected and future breaches may attract severe consequences.

Court Disposition

No further action taken; no contempt proceedings initiated.