Arcadia Group Ltd & Ors v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 96 (QB) (23 January 2019)

Arcadia Group Ltd & Ors v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Rev 1) [2019] EWHC 96 (QB) (23 January 2019)

Given the defendant's further concessions and undertakings to amend its Defence to align with the Court of Appeal's inferences regarding the source and nature of the confidential information, the claimants have not demonstrated that source disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice at this stage. The applications for further disclosure are either not proportionate or premature. Costs budgets are approved with reductions for excessive hourly rates and partner involvement. The issue of Parliamentary privilege is to be drawn to the attention of the Lord Speaker for possible representations.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 96
Parties
Claimant: Arcadia Group Limited; Claimant: Topshop/Topman Limited; Claimant: Sir Philip Green; Defendant: Telegraph Media Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Applications (disclosure, Source Identification, Costs Budgeting)
Outcome
Applications for source disclosure and further disclosure dismissed or no order; costs budgets approved with reductions; issue of Parliamentary privilege referred to Lord Speaker.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Source Protection, Non Disclosure Agreements (ndas), Disclosure of Documents, Parliamentary Privilege, Costs Budgeting
Media Law Confidentiality Employment Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Source Protection Non Disclosure Agreements (ndas) Disclosure of Documents +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arcadia Group Limited

Claimant

Topshop/Topman Limited

Claimant

Sir Philip Green

Claimant

Telegraph Media Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Applications (disclosure, Source Identification, Costs Budgeting)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is required to disclose its journalistic sources under CPR 18.1 and CPR 31.19(5)
  2. 2 Whether further and better disclosure of documents should be ordered against either party
  3. 3 Whether the defendant should be ordered to disclose information about third parties

Ratio Decidendi

Given the defendant's further concessions and undertakings to amend its Defence to align with the Court of Appeal's inferences regarding the source and nature of the confidential information, the claimants have not demonstrated that source disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice at this stage. The applications for further disclosure are either not proportionate or premature. Costs budgets are approved with reductions for excessive hourly rates and partner involvement. The issue of Parliamentary privilege is to be drawn to the attention of the Lord Speaker for possible representations.

Court Disposition

Applications for source disclosure and further disclosure dismissed or no order; costs budgets approved with reductions; issue of Parliamentary privilege referred to Lord Speaker.

Orders

  • No order on the Source Disclosure Application, subject to review if developments arise.
  • No order on the Claimants' Disclosure Application.