Wild Justice v Natural England

Written submissions: 14.7.26 and 16.7.26

Determination on the Papers

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down at 10am on 28 July 2026, by circulation to the parties and uploading to the National Archives.

Introduction

This is another case about the “vital distinction between a Court Embargo and a Journalism Embargo”: see R (Glaister) v Assistant Coroner for North Wales [2025] EWHC 1018 (Admin) [2025] ACD 89 at §§1, 5. I have embarked on the Court's “dual enquiry” (a) into the facts and circumstances, to decide whether there has been any breach of the Court Embargo and (b) to answer the contempt questions posed by CPR 81.6(1) ( Glaister §5). Both Badger Trust and the Secretary of State have filed measured and helpful written submissions. Natural England adopted the Secretary of State's submissions. It has not been necessary for Wild Justice to participate. I record that Badger Trust has agreed to pay the £900 costs of preparation of the Secretary of State's written submissions.

The upshot is this. As is recognised by Badger Trust and the Secretary of State, there has been a breach of the Court Embargo in this case. The breach is significant. This “narrative judgment making clear what has gone wrong” ( Glaister §§5, 34) is the necessary response, but also the appropriate and proportionate response. It is rightly common ground, in light of the circumstances which have been investigated and the evidence which has been provided, that no question arises of any contempt of court ( Glaister §37).

Getting the Message Across

I started by saying this is “another” case. That is because in Match Group LLC v Muzmatch [2022] EWHC 1023 (IPEC), and again in R (Kinsey) v Lewisham LBC [2022] EWHC 2723 (Admin), and then again in Glaister, there was “embargoed” disclosure to journalists, ahead of the hand-down of a Confidential Embargoed Draft Judgment (CEDJ), in clear breach of the Court Embargo (see Glaister §§19–20). Now it has happened again, in the present case. It is a “big mistake” ( Glaister §17). The Court Embargo is fundamentally different from a Journalism Embargo ( Glaister §15). This is a vital message. To promote getting it across, I will pause to say once again:

THE COURT EMBARGO IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM A JOURNALISM EMBARGO.

The Claimants' Solicitors

Before turning to the breach, it is right to record that the Claimants' solicitors, Leigh Day & Co (LDC), have acted with complete propriety. Nor is there any question of any impropriety by the Claimants' Counsel. First, LDC and Counsel had received the CEDJ at 1005 on 18.6.26, following the hearing on 16.6.26, scheduled for hand-down at 1000 on 26.6.26. It was LDC's responsibility to communicate the CEDJ to the Claimants. And when the CEDJ was duly circulated to the Claimants by LDC's Senior Environmental Solicitor, Carol Day (at 1058 on 18.6.26), the Court Embargo was clearly communicated in Ms Day's email. She wrote:

Please note that this draft is confidential to the parties and their legal representatives. Neither the draft itself nor its substance may be disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain. The parties must take all reasonable steps to ensure that its confidentiality is preserved. No action is to be taken (other than internally) in response to the draft before judgment has been formally pronounced in open court. A breach of any of these obligations may be treated as contempt of court .

Second, LDC rightly ensured that members of its own press office had no involvement in the preparation of any draft press release by the Claimants, in circumstances where LDC's press office were not appropriate recipients of the CEDJ or its substance. Third, when Wild Justice circulated a draft press release for use on the hand-down day, but which bore the words “embargoed until 10am on 26 June 2026”, LDC Partner Ricardo Gama immediately spotted a red flag. He promptly sent an email (at 1207 on 25.6.26) giving this clear advice:

In the PR, where it says embargoed until 10am on 26 June, it's important that the PR is not sent to journalists, even under embargo, until we have confirmation that judgment has been handed down. That may be after 10am .

Fourth, the breach came to LDC's attention because Mr Gama scrolled down in the text of an email into which he was only cc'd (at 1402 on 26.6.26) by Rosie Wood, the Chair of Badger Trust. The email chain showed him that Nigel Palmer, the CEO of Badger Trust had sent the press release to 85 members of the press at 0926 on 26.6.26, ahead of the 10am hand-down and ahead of receipt of the finalised judgment. Fifth, Mr Gama acted with urgency. He telephoned Ms Wood, emailed Leading Counsel (at 1417), emailed Badger Trust with clear advice as to necessary investigative and remedial steps including...