Sir Frederick Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1341 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11X01432 |
| Date | 27 May 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 1341 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ11X01432
Hugh Tomlinson QC (instructed by Olswang) for the Applicant
Richard Spearman QC (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for the Defendant
Jonathan Caplan QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for Associated Newspapers Ltd
Hearing dates: 23 May 2011
Notwithstanding the title to the action, this judgment relates to Associated Newspapers Ltd ("ANL"), and not to the Defendant News Group Newspapers Ltd.
The Applicant is a lady with whom Sir Frederick Goodwin is alleged to have had an affair while both were working for RBS, before RBS had to be rescued by public funds some 18 months or so ago. The application before me is by the lady alone, represented by Mr Tomlinson QC. She asks me to refer to the Attorney-General a publication in the issue of the Daily Mail dated 20 May 2011. She submits that ANL is in contempt of court by it conduct impeding the purpose the court sought to achieve in making the order against the Defendant.
In Attorney-General v Punch [2003] 1 AC 1046 Lord Nicholls said:
"2. Contempt of court is the established, if unfortunate, name given to the species of wrongful conduct which consists of interference with the administration of justice. It is an essential adjunct of the rule of law. Interference with the administration of justice can take many forms. In civil proceedings one obvious form is a wilful failure by a party to the proceedings to comply with a court order made against him. By such a breach a party may frustrate, to greater or lesser extent, the purpose the court sought to achieve in making the order against him…
3. The form of contempt asserted by the Attorney General in the present case is different, although closely related. Sometimes the purpose a court seeks to achieve in making an order against a party to proceedings may be deliberately impeded or prejudiced by the conduct of a third party. This may take more than one form. The third party may be assisting, that is, aiding and abetting, a breach of the order by the person against whom the order was made. Then he is an accessory to the breach of the order….
4. Aiding and abetting a breach of the order by the person specifically restrained by the order is not always an essential ingredient of 'third party' contempt. The purpose of a court in making an order may be deliberately frustrated by a third party even though he is acting independently of the party against whom the order was made. An interlocutory order for the non-disclosure of information is the paradigm example of the type of order where this principle is in point. The Spycatcher litigation is the best known recent instance of this. It is a contempt of court by a third party, with the intention of impeding or prejudicing the administration of justice by the court in an action between two other parties, himself to do the acts which the injunction restrains the defendant in that action from committing if the acts done have some significant and adverse affect on the administration of justice in that action: see Lord Brandon of Oakbrook in Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191, 203D, 206G-H, and, for the latter part, Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing plc [1997] 1 WLR 927, 936. Lord Phillips MR neatly identified the rationale of this form of contempt, at [2001] QB 1028, 1055, paragraph 87:
"The contempt is committed not because the third party is in breach of the order — the order does not bind the third party. The contempt is committed because the purpose of the judge in making the order is intentionally frustrated with the consequence that the conduct of the trial is disrupted."
On 9 March 2011 Sharp J made an order in this Case No HQ11X00782 under the name MNB v News Group Newspapers Ltd. She handed down a written judgment [2011] EWHC 528 (QB) setting out her reasons. On 19 May I made a fresh order in substitution for that of 9 May. In it I identified MNB as Sir Frederick Goodwin. My reasons are set out in my judgment [2011] EWHC 1309 (QB). Both judgments are available in the usual way on www.bailii.org. At that hearing Associated Newspapers Ltd had been represented by Mr Andrew Caldecott QC. He had made submissions, as recorded in my judgment.
The order of 19 May prohibits, amongst other matters, the disclosure of
"any information identifying or tending to identify the person named in the Confidential Schedule as being the person with whom [Sir Frederick Goodwin] is alleged to have had a sexual relationship, save for that contained in this Order and in any public judgment of the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryan Joseph Giggs (Previously Known as "ctb") v (1) News Group Newspapers Ltd and (2) Imogen Thomas
... ... It was at the same time making similar complaints in a separate action. Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1309 (QB) came before the court three times at about the same period: 23 May 2011; [2011] EWHC 1341 (QB) ... ...
-
JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd
...2010) none Goodwin (formerly MNB) v News Group [2011] EWHC 528 (QB) (09 March 2011) [2011] EWHC 1309 (QB) (23 May 2011) [2011] EWHC 1341 (QB) (27 May 2011) [2011] EWHC 1437 (QB) (09 June 2011) ETK v News Group [2011] EWCA Civ 439 (19 April 2011) [2011] 1 WLR 1827 MJN v News Group [201......