For your eyes only...(Pt 3)

Neil Parpworth considers the limits of the court’s leniency when it comes to breaching an embargo

In Interdigital Technology Corp and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others [2023] EWCA Civ 57, in which a draft judgment was circulated despite its embargo, the Court of Appeal considered that the circumstances were not sufficiently egregious to warrant further action to be taken against the contemnor.
However, properly respecting an embargo ought to remain a priority, since the courts may eventually decide that a formal sanction is necessary to deter others from making the same mistake.

In delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Counsel General for Wales) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWCA Civ 181, [2022] All ER (D) 79 (Feb), the Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos noted that as far as he had been able to discover, there had only been two previous court decisions relating to the breach of an embargo on publishing a draft judgment: see Baigent v Random House (Re The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

For your eyes only...(Pt 3)

Neil Parpworth considers the limits of the court’s leniency when it comes to breaching an embargo

In Interdigital Technology Corp and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others [2023] EWCA Civ 57, in which a draft judgment was circulated despite its embargo, the Court of Appeal considered that the circumstances were not sufficiently egregious to warrant further action to be taken against the contemnor.
However, properly respecting an embargo ought to remain a priority, since the courts may eventually decide that a formal sanction is necessary to deter others from making the same mistake.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

Error message

For your eyes only...(Pt 3)

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven