John, Happenstance Ltd, William A Bong Ltd, J Bondi Ltd, Eversheds (a firm) v. Express Newspapers, Rosie Boycott, Rachel Baird [2000] EWHC QB 130 (3rd March, 2000)

John, Happenstance Ltd, William A Bong Ltd, J Bondi Ltd, Eversheds (a firm) v. Express Newspapers, Rosie Boycott, Rachel Baird [2000] EWHC QB 130 (3rd March, 2000)

The necessity for disclosure in the interests of justice has been convincingly established; the threat to legal professional privilege and the likelihood of repetition by the source outweigh the need to protect journalistic sources in this case. The balance of competing interests justifies ordering disclosure.

Citation
[2000] EWHC QB 130
Parties
Claimant: First to Fourth Claimants; Claimant: Eversheds (Fifth Claimant); Defendant: Express Newspapers; Defendant: Ms Baird (Third Defendant); Defendant: Ms Boycott (Second Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Application for Disclosure Order / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Journalistic Source Protection, Legal Professional Privilege, Disclosure Orders, Interests of Justice, Balancing Exercise Between Press Freedom and Justice
Media Law Confidentiality Civil Procedure Journalistic Source Protection Legal Professional Privilege Disclosure Orders Interests of Justice Balancing Exercise Between Press Freedom and Justice

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First to Fourth Claimants

Claimant

Eversheds (Fifth Claimant)

Claimant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

Ms Baird (Third Defendant)

Defendant

Ms Boycott (Second Defendant)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Disclosure Order / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants must disclose the identity of their journalistic source for confidential legal advice belonging to the Claimants
  2. 2 Whether the necessity for disclosure in the interests of justice overrides the protection of journalistic sources under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

The necessity for disclosure in the interests of justice has been convincingly established; the threat to legal professional privilege and the likelihood of repetition by the source outweigh the need to protect journalistic sources in this case. The balance of competing interests justifies ordering disclosure.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Defendants are ordered to disclose to the Claimants the identity of their source of the confidential information by noon on Wednesday.