Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE v Associated Newspapers Limited
[2023] EWHC 2789 (KB)
Stokoe Partnership Solicitors v Dechert LLP & Ors
21 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3273 (KB)
High Court
Lawyers sued a law firm for hiring hackers. They wanted documents from journalists who wrote about the hacking, but the judge refused because giving the documents would reveal the journalists' secret sources, which is illegal. The judge also decided the lawyers had to pay the journalists' legal costs for a separate related case.
Key Facts
- •Two applications for non-party disclosure orders were made against Franz Wild, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and Times Media Limited.
- •The applications sought disclosure of documents relating to alleged email hacking by a private investigator hired by Dechert LLP.
- •The applicants are Stokoe Partnership Solicitors and Karam Al Sadeq, who are involved in separate but related proceedings against Dechert LLP and others.
- •The respondents are journalists who had published articles about the alleged hacking.
- •The applicants argued that the respondents possessed documents relevant to their claims and that disclosure was necessary for a fair trial.
- •The respondents argued that disclosure would jeopardize their journalistic sources and that their actions were protected by Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Legal Principles
Non-party disclosure orders are an exception, not the rule, and are only granted where the relevance and necessity requirements are met.
Frankson v Home Office [2003] EWCA Civ 655, Three Rivers District Council v The Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 4) [2002] EWCA Civ 1182
The applicant must show that the documents sought 'may well' support their case.
Three Rivers (No 4)
The necessity requirement is largely, but not wholly, to follow relevance, and the court considers whether the applicant has or can obtain similar documentation from other sources.
Andrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 734 (Ch)
The court balances competing public interests, including the right to a fair trial and the protection of journalistic sources.
Frankson
Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 protects journalistic sources unless disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security.
Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 10
The burden is on the journalist to establish a 'reasonable chance' or 'serious risk' of compromising a source by disclosure.
Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 1209(QB)
Outcomes
The December Application for non-party disclosure was refused.
While the court found the relevance and necessity requirements were met, the respondents successfully invoked Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, demonstrating a serious risk of compromising their sources even with redaction.
The normal rule on costs applied to the October Application.
Both parties acted reasonably, although at times at cross-purposes, in pursuing and opposing the application. The court found no reason to displace the standard rule that the applicant pays the costs.
Similar Cases
Jennifer Marie Bridgett Webster v HMRC
[2023] EWHC 2697 (KB)
His Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation
[2022] EWHC 2925 (KB)
HRH The Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Limited
[2024] EWHC 1730 (Ch)
WH Holding Limited v E20 Stadium LLP
[2024] EWHC 817 (Comm)