Keep quiet: Solicitors should advise every party who receives judgment
The High Court has told solicitors to set out the terms of judgment embargos clearly to their clients after a case where the client misunderstood the meaning of ‘parties’.
“In the light of the experience of this case, a legal representative may need to explain specifically who can and who cannot be shown the judgment,” said Mr Justice Freedman.
They should then each be individually advised about the terms of the embargo.
The corporate defendant’s owner, John Benson, had thought the express statement heading the draft ruling that it was “confidential to the parties” extended to his nine witnesses, as they had participated in the case. He shared the outcome with them shortly after receiving it.
The substantive decision this week concerned three preliminary issues brought by 20 driving instructors who were former franchisees of Mr Benson’s company.
The draft ruling was distributed on 28 July and the solicitors for the claimants, Aquabridge Law, informed their counterparts of a breach of the embargo two days later.
The court was told later the same day, by which time Mr Benson and seven of the witnesses had provided undertakings not to share the information, and Mr Benson had given a witness statement to explain what had happened.
Mr Benson told the court that his solicitor at Essex and Suffolk firm Holmes & Hills had drawn his attention to the embargo before sending it over on 29 July. He had “wrongly assumed” that, as the witnesses had attended the trial, they were parties to the proceedings and the outcome could be shared with them.
He did not check this with his lawyers or send the actual draft judgment.
According to Aquabridge Law, four non-witnesses had found out about the outcome as a result.
While stressing he was not criticising the solicitors, Freedman J said: “In the light of the experience of this case, a legal representative may need to explain specifically who can and who cannot be shown the judgment.
“Attention needs to be given in each case as to who is a party and who is not. This arises particularly in the context of a party which is a body corporate or a partnership or an unincorporated association.
“Even where someone is a party, consideration needs to be taken to ensure that each person notified knows of and understand the embargo.
“Further in respect of those persons entitled to see it, it is for a limited purpose, namely for the correction of errors, preparation of submissions on consequential matters and to prepare themselves for the publication of the judgment.”
But in the circumstances – which included the speed of Holmes & Hills’ response, Mr Benson’s apology and the fact that the case did not involve price sensitive information or highly personal information – the judge decided that he would not initiate committal proceedings.
Leave a Comment