Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Dechert LLP & Ors

Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Dechert LLP & Ors

Although the applicants satisfied the relevance and necessity requirements for non-party disclosure, the respondents established through uncontradicted evidence that any disclosure, even in redacted form or explanation, would create a serious risk of compromising journalistic sources. Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 therefore barred the order. Both parties acted reasonably regarding the withdrawn October Application, so the normal costs rule applies.

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; Third Party Respondent: Franz Wild; Third Party Respondent: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism; Third Party Respondent: Times Media Limited; Claimant: Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq; Defendant: David Hughes; Defendant: Caroline Black
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Non Party Disclosure Applications and Costs
Outcome
December Application for non-party disclosure refused; costs of October Application to be paid by applicants per normal rule.
Legal Topics
Non Party Disclosure, Journalistic Source Protection, Costs of Applications, Disclosure Against Third Parties, Article 10 ECHR, Section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981
Civil Procedure Media Law Human Rights Non Party Disclosure Journalistic Source Protection Costs of Applications Disclosure Against Third Parties Article 10 ECHR +1 more

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 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

Third Party Respondent

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Third Party Respondent

Times Media Limited

Third Party Respondent

Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq

Claimant

David Hughes

Defendant

Caroline Black

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Non Party Disclosure Applications and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-party disclosure should be ordered against journalists and media organisations under CPR 31.17
  2. 2 Whether journalistic source protection under section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 ECHR bars such disclosure
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of withdrawn disclosure applications

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants satisfied the relevance and necessity requirements for non-party disclosure, the respondents established through uncontradicted evidence that any disclosure, even in redacted form or explanation, would create a serious risk of compromising journalistic sources. Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 therefore barred the order. Both parties acted reasonably regarding the withdrawn October Application, so the normal costs rule applies.

Court Disposition

December Application for non-party disclosure refused; costs of October Application to be paid by applicants per normal rule.

Orders

  • December Application refused due to section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981.
  • Applicants to pay respondents' costs of the October Application.