CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 3099 (QB) (25 November 2011)

CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 3099 (QB) (25 November 2011)

Permission to read the draft statement in open court was refused because the statement was ambiguous and potentially misleading, particularly as it disavowed 'blackmail' without clarifying whether the underlying factual allegations were withdrawn or maintained. The court's process must not be used to make ambiguous statements, and the proposed statement would not achieve the objective of putting the record straight or vindicating the Second Defendant.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3099
Parties
Claimant: CTB; First Defendant: News Group Newspapers Limited; Second Defendant: Imogen Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Permission to Read a Statement in Open Court
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private or Confidential Information, Statements in Open Court, Injunctions, Settlement Procedures
Privacy Law Civil Procedure Misuse of Private or Confidential Information Statements in Open Court Injunctions Settlement Procedures

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CTB

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Limited

First Defendant

Imogen Thomas

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Permission to Read a Statement in Open Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant permission for the Second Defendant to read a unilateral statement in open court as part of settlement in a privacy claim
  2. 2 Whether the proposed statement would be misleading or ambiguous and thus an abuse of the court's process

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to read the draft statement in open court was refused because the statement was ambiguous and potentially misleading, particularly as it disavowed 'blackmail' without clarifying whether the underlying factual allegations were withdrawn or maintained. The court's process must not be used to make ambiguous statements, and the proposed statement would not achieve the objective of putting the record straight or vindicating the Second Defendant.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to read the draft statement in open court is refused