Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 1209 (QB) (29 April 2022)

Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 1209 (QB) (29 April 2022)

Section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR protect journalistic sources regardless of confidentiality or whether the source has come forward. The threshold for overriding source protection is high and requires necessity in the interests of justice, which was not met here. The witness summonses would likely risk disclosure of sources, and the applications to compel disclosure from NGN did not demonstrate a sufficiently pressing interest of justice to override source protection rights.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1209 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Rebekah Vardy; Respondent/defendant: Coleen Rooney; Applicant/journalist: Andrew Halls; Applicant/journalist: Simon Boyle; Applicant/journalist: Amy Brookbanks; Journalist: Michael Hamilton; Non Party: NGN (News Group Newspapers)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (civil) / Pre Trial Applications (witness Summonses, Non Party Disclosure)
Outcome
Applications by journalists to set aside witness summonses granted; claimant's application to rely on amended witness summary of Mr Hamilton granted; defendant's application to compel disclosure from NGN refused.
Legal Topics
Source Protection, Witness Summons, Disclosure, Article 10 ECHR, Section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981
Media Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Source Protection Witness Summons Disclosure Article 10 ECHR Section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebekah Vardy

Appellant/claimant

Coleen Rooney

Respondent/defendant

Andrew Halls

Applicant/journalist

Simon Boyle

Applicant/journalist

Amy Brookbanks

Applicant/journalist

Michael Hamilton

Journalist

NGN (News Group Newspapers)

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (civil) / Pre Trial Applications (witness Summonses, Non Party Disclosure)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether witness summonses against journalists should be set aside due to source protection rights under s.10 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether claimant may rely on amended witness summaries
  3. 3 Whether non-party (NGN) should be compelled to disclose documents potentially revealing sources

Ratio Decidendi

Section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR protect journalistic sources regardless of confidentiality or whether the source has come forward. The threshold for overriding source protection is high and requires necessity in the interests of justice, which was not met here. The witness summonses would likely risk disclosure of sources, and the applications to compel disclosure from NGN did not demonstrate a sufficiently pressing interest of justice to override source protection rights.

Court Disposition

Applications by journalists to set aside witness summonses granted; claimant's application to rely on amended witness summary of Mr Hamilton granted; defendant's application to compel disclosure from NGN refused.

Orders

  • Permission granted to claimant to rely on amended witness summary of Mr Hamilton.
  • Witness summonses in respect of Mr Halls, Mr Boyle and Ms Brookbanks set aside.