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, the claimants have not demonstrated that source disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice at this stage. The balance of interests does not justify overriding source protection rights. No further disclosure or costs budgeting orders are warranted beyond those made.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 96 (QB)
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 largely refused or no order made; costs budgets approved for remaining phases; source disclosure application kept under review.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Source Protection, Non Disclosure Agreements (ndas), Disclosure of Documents, Parliamentary Privilege, Costs Budgeting
Media Law Confidentiality Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Source Protection Non Disclosure Agreements (ndas) Disclosure of Documents Parliamentary Privilege +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 9 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 under a duty of confidence regarding the information at issue
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of the information is justified in the public interest
  3. 3 Whether the defendant must identify its sources

Ratio Decidendi

Given the defendant's further concessions and undertakings to amend its Defence to align with the Court of Appeal's inferences, the claimants have not demonstrated that source disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice at this stage. The balance of interests does not justify overriding source protection rights. No further disclosure or costs budgeting orders are warranted beyond those made.

Court Disposition

Applications largely refused or no order made; costs budgets approved for remaining phases; source disclosure application kept under review.

Orders

  • No order on Source Disclosure Application, subject to review if circumstances change.
  • No order on Claimants' Disclosure Application.