Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Grayson & Ors [2023] EWHC 3273 (KB) (21 December 2023)

Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Grayson & Ors [2023] EWHC 3273 (KB) (21 December 2023)

The court refused the non-party disclosure application because the respondents, through credible and uncontradicted evidence, established a serious risk that disclosure, even in redacted form or with explanation, would compromise journalistic sources. Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applied, and none of its exceptions were engaged. The applicants' rights to a fair trial did not override the statutory protection of sources in this context.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 3273 (KB)
Parties
Claimant / Applicant: Stokoe Partnership Solicitors; Defendant: Patrick Grayson; Defendant: Grayson + Co Limited; Defendant: Stuart Robert Page; Defendant: Page Corporate Investigations Limited; Defendant: Dechert LLP; Defendant: David Neil Gerrard; Respondent: Franz Wild; Respondent: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism; Respondent: Times Media Limited; Claimant: Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq; Defendant: David Hughes; Defendant: Caroline Black
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2023
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Proceedings (king's Bench Division) / Application for Non Party Disclosure Order; Costs Determination on Withdrawn Application
Outcome
Application for non-party disclosure refused; costs of withdrawn application to be determined per normal rule.
Legal Topics
Non Party Disclosure, Journalistic Source Protection, Article 10 ECHR, Section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981, Costs of Third Party Disclosure Applications
Civil Procedure Media Law Human Rights Non Party Disclosure Journalistic Source Protection Article 10 ECHR Section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981 Costs of Third Party Disclosure Applications

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stokoe Partnership Solicitors

Claimant / Applicant

Patrick Grayson

Defendant

Grayson + Co Limited

Defendant

Stuart Robert Page

Defendant

Page Corporate Investigations Limited

Defendant

Dechert LLP

Defendant

David Neil Gerrard

Defendant

Franz Wild

Respondent

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Respondent

Times Media Limited

Respondent

Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq

Claimant

David Hughes

Defendant

Caroline Black

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Proceedings (king's Bench Division) / Application for Non Party Disclosure Order; Costs Determination on Withdrawn Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-party disclosure should be ordered against journalists/media organisations under CPR r 31.17 in light of journalistic source protection under section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR; Whether costs should be awarded against applicants after withdrawal of a speculative application

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the non-party disclosure application because the respondents, through credible and uncontradicted evidence, established a serious risk that disclosure, even in redacted form or with explanation, would compromise journalistic sources. Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applied, and none of its exceptions were engaged. The applicants' rights to a fair trial did not override the statutory protection of sources in this context.

Court Disposition

Application for non-party disclosure refused; costs of withdrawn application to be determined per normal rule.

Orders

  • December Application for non-party disclosure refused.
  • No order for disclosure against respondents.