Preston Borough Council v McGrath [2000] EWCA Civ 151 (12 May 2000)

Preston Borough Council v McGrath [2000] EWCA Civ 151 (12 May 2000)

There is no implied undertaking to the court binding prosecuting authorities not to use unused material disclosed in criminal proceedings for purposes other than those proceedings. Any constraints on the police regarding use of such material arise from public duty or duty of confidence to the owner, not from an undertaking to the court. Therefore, the Council's use of the material did not constitute contempt of court or an abuse of process, and the proceedings should not be struck out.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 151
Parties
Applicant: Preston Borough Council; Respondent: Mr McGrath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Undertaking, Use of Evidence, Abuse of Process, Contempt of Court, Duty of Confidence, Police Powers, Disclosure of Documents
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Public Law Implied Undertaking Use of Evidence Abuse of Process Contempt of Court Duty of Confidence +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Preston Borough Council

Applicant

Mr McGrath

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecuting authorities are bound by an implied undertaking to the court not to use unused material disclosed in criminal proceedings for purposes other than those proceedings
  2. 2 Whether civil proceedings brought using such material constitute an abuse of process or contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

There is no implied undertaking to the court binding prosecuting authorities not to use unused material disclosed in criminal proceedings for purposes other than those proceedings. Any constraints on the police regarding use of such material arise from public duty or duty of confidence to the owner, not from an undertaking to the court. Therefore, the Council's use of the material did not constitute contempt of court or an abuse of process, and the proceedings should not be struck out.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Section 18 order