M.G.N. Pension Trustees Ltd v Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1994 |
| Date | 12 December 1994 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division
Before Mr Justice Lindsay
Contempt of court - civil proceedings report - postponement
Judges considering whether to make an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 postponing the publication of the report of legal proceedings held in public, where such order appeared necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in other proceedings pending or imminent, should apply a three-part test.
They should ask themselves three questions: (i) whether there was a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in the other proceedings, (ii) whether it appeared to be necessary for avoiding that risk that there should be made some order postponing publication of any report of the proceedings being held in public and, if so, (iii) whether the court ought in its discretion to make any and, if so, which order.
Mr Justice Lindsay so held in the Chancery Division when giving his reasons for having stood over generally on December 5 an application made by the Serious Fraud Office and supported by others for an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act postponing the publication of any report of civil proceedings then being heard by his Lordship brought in relation to attempts by trustees of the Maxwell pension funds to recover trust assets or compensation for the loss thereof from various financial institutions.
The application was opposed by Associated Newspapers Ltd, Express Newspapers plc, The Telegraph plc, Times Newspapers Ltd, The Financial Times Ltd and Guardian Newspapers Ltd, all publishers of various newspapers.
Section 4 of the 1981 Act provides:
"(2) In any (legal proceedings held in public) the court may, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose."
Mr Alan Suckling, QC and Mr Mark Lucraft for the Serious Fraud Office; Mr Michael Hill, QC, for Mr Larry Trachtenberg; Mr Edmund Lawson, QC, for Mr Ian Maxwell; Mr Philip Hackett for Mr Robert Bunn; Mr Edward Bannister, QC, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perrin and another v Northampton Borough Council and Others
...'necessary' or 'necessarily' have been considered. These included the contempt of court case MGN PensionTrustees v Bank of America [1995] 2 All ER 355. However, in general terms, it is difficult to take too much from these decisions, because the proper construction of a word like 'necessary......
-
R v Sherwood ex parte The Telegraph Group Plc and Others
...Daily Telegraph Plc. [1993] 2 All E.R. 177, Ex parte The Telegraph Plc. [1993] 1 W.L.R. 980, and M.G.N. Pension Trustees Ltd. v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association [1995] 2 All E.R. 355. We believe that from these authorities it is possible to derive a three stage series......
-
Gary Arthur Allen (Claimant) The Grimsby Telegrph (Defendant) The Chief Constable of Humberside Police (Interested party)
...by the making of a postponing order: see MGN Pensions Trustees Limited v Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association> [1995] 2 All ER 355. 11 Section 11 of the 1981 Act provides: "In any case where a court (having power to do so) allows a name or other matter to be withheld from......