Fortescue Metals Group Ltd & Anor v Argus Media Ltd & Anor

Fortescue Metals Group Ltd & Anor v Argus Media Ltd & Anor

The Claimants failed to show that they are more likely than not to obtain a permanent injunction at trial. The DMTU discount, while having some quality of confidence, had been regularly published without objection for years, and the public interest in market transparency and journalistic reporting outweighed the interest in restraining publication. The requirements of s.12 HRA and Article 10 ECHR were not met for a prior restraint.

Parties
Claimant: Fortescue Metals Group Ltd; Claimant: Chichester Metals Pty Ltd; Defendant: Argus Media Limited; Defendant: S&P Global Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (injunction) / Ruling on Interim Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Application for continuation of interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Trade Secrets, Public Interest Defence
Media Law Commercial Law Confidentiality Breach of Confidence Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Trade Secrets Public Interest Defence

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fortescue Metals Group Ltd

Claimant

Chichester Metals Pty Ltd

Claimant

Argus Media Limited

Defendant

S&P Global Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (injunction) / Ruling on Interim Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DMTU discount is confidential information protected by contract or equity
  2. 2 Whether publication of the DMTU discount by the Defendants should be restrained pending trial
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in publication outweighs the duty of confidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants failed to show that they are more likely than not to obtain a permanent injunction at trial. The DMTU discount, while having some quality of confidence, had been regularly published without objection for years, and the public interest in market transparency and journalistic reporting outweighed the interest in restraining publication. The requirements of s.12 HRA and Article 10 ECHR were not met for a prior restraint.

Court Disposition

Application for continuation of interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Interim restraining order not continued
  • No permanent injunction granted at this stage