Esheria England and Wales Case Law
Sign in
England and Wales Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

England and Wales Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter England and Wales case law

Results update automatically as you type.

England and Wales decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Media law

Cynthia Nkiruka Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd

The application was dismissed because the claimant failed to establish that Guardian News & Media Ltd was mixed up in, or facilitated, the alleged wrongdoing. The Guardian was merely a recipient of information and did not publish or otherwise participate in the wrongdoing. As the third condition for a Norwich Pharmacal order was not met, the court's discretion did not arise.

Source excerpt

  • Norwich pharmacal orders
  • Journalistic source protection
  • Breach of confidence
  • Misuse of private information
Read case analysis
Defamation

Cynthia Niruka Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor

Relief from sanctions was granted for the TMG claim as the claimant's default was inadvertent and the interests of justice favoured reinstatement. The limitation period for ANL1 was not disapplied because the claimant failed to provide a clear, adequate, and satisfactory explanation for delay; thus, ANL1 was dismissed. Interim injunctions were refused as the statements were not unarguably defamatory, defences were available, and the applications were overly broad. The Norwich Pharmacal order was refused as no arguable wrongdoing by the source was established and the strong public interest in…

Source excerpt

  • Limitation of actions
  • Relief from sanctions
  • Interim injunctions
  • Norwich pharmacal orders
  • Freedom of expression
  • Journalistic source protection
Read case analysis
Media law

Cynthia Nkiruka Tooley MBE v Times Media Limited

The essential purpose of the interim injunction application was to protect the claimant's reputation, so the defamation rule applied. The claimant failed to show the statements were unarguably defamatory or that there were no grounds for a defence. The Norwich Pharmacal order was refused because the claimant had not established necessity, having not taken reasonable steps to confirm the source, and the strong protection of journalistic sources should not be overridden.

Source excerpt

  • Interim injunctions
  • Norwich pharmacal orders
  • Misuse of private information
  • Breach of confidence
  • Defamation
  • Malicious falsehood
Read case analysis
Media law [2026] EWHC 675 (KB)

Tooley v Times Media Ltd

Tooley v Times Media Ltd [2026] EWHC 675 (KB) (23 March 2026)

The High Court refused an interim injunction and a Norwich Pharmacal order in a media dispute, holding the applications were driven by reputational harm and lacking necessity.

  • Interim injunctions
  • Norwich pharmacal orders
  • Misuse of private information
  • Breach of confidence
  • Defamation
  • Malicious falsehood
Read case analysis
Defamation [2026] EWHC 683 (KB)

Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor

Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 683 (KB) (23 March 2026)

The High Court granted relief from sanctions to reinstate the Telegraph claim, but dismissed one Associated Newspapers claim as time-barred and refused injunction and source-disclosure relief.

  • Limitation period
  • Relief from sanctions
  • Interim injunction
  • Norwich pharmacal order
  • Freedom of expression
  • Journalistic source protection
Read case analysis
Media law [2026] EWHC 548 (KB)

Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Tooley v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2026] EWHC 548 (KB) (13 January 2026)

The High Court dismissed a Norwich Pharmacal application against The Guardian, holding it was only a recipient of information and not mixed up in any wrongdoing.

  • Norwich pharmacal orders
  • Journalistic source protection
  • Breach of confidence
  • Misuse of private information
  • Defamation
  • Malicious falsehood
Read case analysis
Media law

Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd

The court refused both applications. The transcripts application was refused because the claimant failed to demonstrate necessity or materiality, the application was made late, and disclosure would be disruptive. The redactions application was refused because the claimant failed to convincingly establish necessity to override the public interest in source protection, and the application was also made too late.

Source excerpt

  • Disclosure
  • Litigation privilege
  • Journalistic source protection
  • Redactions
  • Freedom of expression
Read case analysis
Media law [2025] EWHC 550 (KB)

Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd

Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 550 (KB) (07 March 2025)

The High Court refused applications for certified transcripts and wider disclosure redactions, finding the transcript request late, overbroad, and insufficiently justified.

  • Disclosure
  • Litigation privilege
  • Journalistic source protection
  • Redactions
  • Freedom of expression
  • Civil-procedure
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

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.

Source excerpt

  • Non-party disclosure
  • Journalistic source protection
  • Costs of applications
  • Disclosure against third parties
  • Article 10 echr
  • Section 10 contempt of court act 1981
Read case analysis
Civil procedure [2023] EWHC 3273 (KB)

Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Grayson & Ors

Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Grayson & Ors [2023] EWHC 3273 (KB) (21 December 2023)

The High Court refused non-party disclosure against journalists and media organisations, holding that source protection under section 10 barred the order.

  • Non-party disclosure
  • Journalistic source protection
  • Article 10 echr
  • Section 10 contempt of court act 1981
  • Costs of third party disclosure applications
  • Non-party-disclosure
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

England and Wales decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.