British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeLord Wilberforce,Viscount Dilhorne,Lord Salmon,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Russell of Killowen
Judgment Date30 July 1980
Judgment citation (vLex)[1980] UKHL J0730-1
Date30 July 1980
CourtHouse of Lords
British Steel Corporation
(Respondents)
and
Granada Television Limited
(Appellants)

[1980] UKHL J0730-1

Lord Wilberforce

Viscount Dilhorne

Lord Salmon

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Lord Russell of Killowen

House of Lords

Lord Wilberforce

My Lords,

1

On 4 February 1980 the appellants, Granada Television Limited, broadcast on a national television network a current affairs programme devoted to the steel strike. This strike, of the workers in the nationalised steel industry, had started in January 1980 and was one of great concern to the Government and to the public. The programme, which lasted about half-an-hour and a replay of which we have seen, showed on the screen, and quoted from, a number of secret or confidential documents the property of the respondents, British Steel Corporation, a nationalised undertaking, and a good deal was made of the achievement of Granada in securing these documents, called "the Steel Papers", for public discussion. The revelation of them, irrespective of their contents, was no doubt intended to, and did, impart a dramatic effect to the programme. In addition, there was an appearance by the Chairman of B.S.C., Sir Charles Villiers, who had put to him, and answered, some questions based on the Papers.

2

The "Steel Papers" used in the programme were some 27 documents out of 250 or thereabouts which had been delivered to Granada on 28 January 1980 by a person, then unknown, who must have been an employee or former employee of B.S.C. and whose work entitled him or her to have access to highly classified documents. There is no doubt that many of them were confidential, indeed very confidential, relating as they did to internal action and discussions at a high-level within B.S.C., and with the Government, to financial and commercial facts which B.S.C. had not made public, and to other matters concerned with productivity and industrial relations. Quite clearly the person concerned had no right, and Granada knew he had no right, to hand them over and in doing he may well have been guilty of an act of theft.

3

The documents were delivered to a representative of Granada without, it is said, any previous appointment with Granada, and Granada says that no inducement or payment was made in connection with them. We have, naturally, no knowledge of the source's motives and no right, or need, to speculate about them. The representative gave to the source a promise, on behalf of Granada, that no step would be taken that might reveal or risk disclosure of the source's identity.

4

This appeal raises the question whether in these proceedings brought by B.S.C. Granada can or should be ordered to disclose the identity of the source. Before considering it I must describe the procedure which has been followed by B.S.C. and the present status of the litigation.

5

On 6 February 1980 (I omit various communications which had taken place between B.S.C. and Granada which raise matters still in controversy) B.S.C. issued against Granada a writ and notice of motion claiming: an injunction against further breaches of confidence and copyright: an order for delivery up of the documents and copies thereof; an enquiry as to damages, and an account of profits. On the same day B.S.C. applied for and obtained an ex parte injunction restraining Granada from further publication or reproduction of the documents.

6

On 28 February 1980 (i.e. after the programme had been broadcast) by agreement between solicitors Granada purported to deliver the documents to the solicitors for B.S.C. On examination of them it was found that they were incomplete, portions having been cut out. Granada admits that this was done, on 27 February, because it was thought that marks on the documents might reveal or risk revelation of the identity of the source. Whatever the reason, this mutilation of documents, which were undoubtedly B.S.C.'s property and which they were incontestably entitled to recover, was a clear and deliberate violation of B.S.C.'s rights. Granada's present argument seems necessarily to involve that they were entitled to mutilate the documents in order to protect the source.

7

On 6 March 1980, B.S.C. amended their notice of motion and their writ so as to claim an order that Granada make and serve on B.S.C.'s solicitors an affidavit setting forth the names of all persons responsible for supplying Granada with the documents. B.S.C. contended, and their counsel at the hearing strongly stressed this point, that it was important for them to ascertain who this person was in order to prevent further misuse by him of B.S.C. documents and in order to dispel the cloud of suspicion hanging over those of its staff who might have handed the documents over. This immediately raised the issue, whether Granada can be compelled by judicial process to reveal the source of their information.

8

The motion came before the Vice-Chancellor (Sir R. Megarry) on 11 March. He decided that no public interest in the media not being forced to disclose their sources of information at the trial of an action had yet been recognised and that there were insufficient grounds for holding that such an interest ought to exist. In so far as the case was one for the balancing of public interests, or for the exercise of discretion, he held that the interest of B.S.C. in having the identity of the source disclosed should prevail. He also held that Granada were not protected against disclosure on the ground of possible self-incrimination. He ordered that Granada should forthwith state on affidavit the names of the persons responsible for supplying them with the documents. On this decision, it was agreed, and so ordered, that the motion should be treated as the trial of the action. B.S.C. indicated that they would not pursue any claim for damages. They were awarded the costs of the action.

9

The Court of Appeal, on appeal by Granada, heard the appeal on 15 April. They upheld the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. Lord Denning M.R. held that there was a public interest in seeing that newspapers should not be compelled to disclose their sources of information. This principle, however, was not absolute: it is granted on condition that the newspaper acts with a due sense of responsibility. His Lordship, after examining the conduct of Granada held that they had not so acted: they had made an unfair use of confidential information in leaving it so late to tell B.S.C. that the papers were to be used, in the conduct of the interview with Sir Charles Villiers, and in their mutilation of the papers.

10

Templeman L.J. undertook to balance the public interest in the attainment of justice against the public interest in the media preserving their sources. He held that no principles of public policy justified resistance to B.S.C.'s claim to discover the identity of B.S.C.'s employee who broke his promise to B.S.C. and enabled Granada to breach their duty to B.S.C. He also rejected the defence based on possible self-incrimination. Watkins L.J. opened his judgment with a general proposition that the media are in principle immune from disclosing their confidential sources of information. He later held however that this principle could be and was outweighed by other competing interests. The Court of Appeal gave Granada seven days to disclose the source.

11

So all the learned judges so far have decided in favour of disclosure of the source. Granada's final appeal was to this House. The hearing took place in July 1980, having been expedited at the request of B.S.C., when the decision was announced. I now give the reasons which, on the arguments then heard, induced me to suggest dismissal of the appeal. Before coming to what I regard as the crucial point for disposal of the case I would make some general observations.

12

First, there were appeals, made in vigorous tones to such broad principles as the freedom of the press, the right to a free flow of information, the public's right to know. In Granada's printed case we find quotations from pronouncements of Sheridan in Parliament and from declarations of eminent judges in cases where the freedom of the press might be involved. I too would be glad to be counted among those whose voice had been raised in favour of this great national possession�a free press: who indeed would not? But this case does not touch upon the freedom of the press even at its periphery. Freedom of the press imports, generally, freedom to publish without pre-censorship, subject always to the laws relating to libel, official secrets, sedition and other recognised inhibitions. It is not necessary to define the concept more closely, for it is clear and not disputed by Granada, that B.S.C. could, if they had acted in time, have obtained from the courts an injunction against publishing or reproducing any of the contents of the documents. I quote from Granada's printed case paragraph 2(vii) "such an injunction [restraining Granada's use of the documents] would certainly have been granted." This position was maintained by counsel at the bar. In other words, Granada do not make the case that they had the right to publish. The question before us, as to disclosure of the source, is another question altogether.

13

Then there is the alleged right to a free flow of information, or the right to know. Your Lordships will perceive without any demonstration from me that use of the word "right" here will not conduce to an understanding of the legal position. As to a free flow of information, it may be said that, in a general sense, it is in the public interest that this should be maintained and not curtailed. Investigatory journalism too in some cases may bring benefits to the public. But, granting this, one is a long way from establishing a right which the law will recognise in a particular case. Before then it is necessary to take account of the legitimate interest which others may have in limiting disclosure of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
154 cases
  • Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 March 1984
    ...1 Queen's Bench 1. I add to those the speeches of Lord Wilberforce, Lord Salmon and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton in British Steel Corporation v. Granada Television Ltd, (1981) Appeal Cases 19There are four further considerations. First, "There is a wide difference between what is interesting......
  • Kirella Pty Ltd v Hooper
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Secretary of State for Defence v Guardian Newspapers Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 December 1983
    ...is entitled to discovery as an aid to pursuing its rights against its dishonest servant (see the Norwich Pharmacal case and British Steel v. Granada Television (1981) Appeal Cases 1096). Refusal to order delivery up would wholly frustrate this right and be contrary to the interests of justi......
  • Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 14 January 2014
    ...in ascertaining a ‘source’ 40 It was later declared in the seminal decision of British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd[1981] AC 1096 (‘British Steel’) by Lord Wilberforce that in compelling disclosure of sources ‘it is only exceptionally that the aggrieved person would have, and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • The Very Naughty List: What Happens If Arbitrators Suspect Criminal Activity By The Parties
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 9 January 2015
    ...compel such disclosure if it considers it necessary for the fair disposal of the case (British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096). No special rule applies to arbitrators - they can be called, and compelled to appear, as witnesses and give evidence in English court pr......
  • Media CAT Scratches The Norwich Pharmacal Order
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 17 June 2011
    ...done. Admittedly, it is not a requirement that the applicant will be bringing court proceedings, see British Steel v Granada Television [1981 AC 1096 HL, Lord Fraser at p1200 C-G and Ashworth Hospital Authority v MGN Ltd [2002] UKHL 29 [2001] 1 WLR 2033, Lord Woolf CJ at paragraphs 41-47. I......
13 books & journal articles
  • PRE-COMMENCEMENT DISCOVERY AND THE ODEX LITIGATION: COPYRIGHT VERSUS CONFIDENTIALITY OR IS IT PRIVACY?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 December 2008
    ...MGN Ltd[2002] UKHL 29. Lord Woolf at para 45 cited with approval the views of Lord Denning in British Steel Corp v Granada Television Ltd[1981] AC 1096 that there was no ground to limit the order to cases where the injured person wanted to sue the wrongdoer. The order could be made to enabl......
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 15-4, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    ...Judge Brennan [2009]IEHC 303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187British Steel Corporation v Granada TelevisionLtd [1981]AC 1096 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346, 347Brown vRice [2007] EWHC625 (Ch). . . . . . . . . 243Brown vStott [2003] 1AC 681, PC . . . . . . 103......
  • Self–Monitoring, Self–Policing, Self–Incrimination and Pollution Law
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 60-2, March 1997
    • 1 March 1997
    ...Lords);though a contrary view was expressed by Lord Denning MR in the Court of Appeal in British SteelCorporation vGranada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096, 1127. The privilege against self-incrimination is also available to corporations in Canada and New Zealand; see EnvironmentProtection Aut......
  • Disclosure of Foreign Intelligence Material: CPIA, Norwich Pharmacal and the War on Terror
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 15-4, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    ...judgment’).48 Ibid.49 Mitsui & Co. Ltd vNexen Petroleum UK Ltd [2005] EWHC 625.50 British Steel Corporation vGranada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096 at 1132, per Templeman LJ.51 Mitsui & Co. Ltd vNexen Petroleum UK Ltd [2005] EWHC 625. See also Nikitin vRichards Butler LLP [2007]EWHC 173 In M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT