John & Ors v Express Newspapers & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 135 (19 April 2000)

John & Ors v Express Newspapers & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 135 (19 April 2000)

Disclosure was not established to be necessary in the interests of justice under s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, particularly as other avenues to identify the source were not exhausted and the threat to legal confidentiality from this single incident was not compelling. The judge should have exercised discretion to refuse disclosure, prioritizing the protection of journalistic sources.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 135
Parties
Claimant: Sir Elton John and others; Defendant: Express Newspapers Ltd; Defendant: Editor of Express and Sunday Express Newspapers; Defendant: Ms Baird (journalist)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Morland J Dated 3 March 2000
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Journalistic Source Protection, Disclosure Orders, Legal Professional Privilege, Contempt of Court, Freedom of the Press
Media Law Confidentiality Legal Professional Privilege Equity Journalistic Source Protection Disclosure Orders Contempt of Court Freedom of the Press

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Elton John and others

Claimant

Express Newspapers Ltd

Defendant

Editor of Express and Sunday Express Newspapers

Defendant

Ms Baird (journalist)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Morland J Dated 3 March 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order journalists to disclose their source of confidential information subject to legal professional privilege
  2. 2 Whether disclosure is 'necessary in the interests of justice' under s.10 Contempt of Court Act 1981

Ratio Decidendi

Disclosure was not established to be necessary in the interests of justice under s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, particularly as other avenues to identify the source were not exhausted and the threat to legal confidentiality from this single incident was not compelling. The judge should have exercised discretion to refuse disclosure, prioritizing the protection of journalistic sources.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Morland J set aside
  • Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused