Arcadia Group Ltd & Ors v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Rev 1)

Arcadia Group Ltd & Ors v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (Rev 1)

Given the defendant's further concessions and proposed amendments to its Defence, the claimants have not demonstrated that source disclosure is presently necessary in the interests of justice. The balance of interests favours upholding source protection at this stage, subject to review if circumstances change.

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 Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications largely refused or no order made; costs budgets approved for remaining phases.
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 6 Authorities cited 10 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 Interlocutory Applications

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 disclose its sources

Ratio Decidendi

Given the defendant's further concessions and proposed amendments to its Defence, the claimants have not demonstrated that source disclosure is presently necessary in the interests of justice. The balance of interests favours upholding source protection at this stage, subject to review if circumstances change.

Court Disposition

Applications largely refused or no order made; costs budgets approved for remaining phases.

Orders

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