CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor

A statement in open court may, in appropriate and rare circumstances, be used by a defendant as well as a claimant to obtain vindication on settlement. The court must ensure that its process is not abused. A proposed statement must be clear, accurate and effective in addressing the allegation it seeks to correct. Permission should be refused where the statement is misleading, ambiguous or leaves the central allegation unresolved.

The claimant brought proceedings against News Group Newspapers Ltd and Imogen Thomas to restrain disclosure of information about their past relationship. An interim injunction was granted and continued, with reasons later published in [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB). Those reasons recorded, on the limited evidence then available, an apparent implication that the claimant had been subjected to blackmail.

The claimant and the second defendant subsequently sought to settle. Ms Thomas applied for permission under CPR Part 53 and Practice Direction 6.3 to read a unilateral statement in open court. The proposed statement sought to correct the publication allegation and to disavow blackmail, but did not clearly address the underlying allegations concerning demands for money. The issue was whether the statement could properly be approved.

1. Permission refused. The proposed statement in open court was not approved because it was ambiguous and would not effectively put the record straight.
2. The wording of the amended procedure did not confine statements in open court to claimants. In an appropriate case, a defendant may use the procedure for vindication, although such cases are likely to be rare. The procedure may also address allegations made in evidence or from the witness box, even if they are not pleaded.
3. The requirement for permission exists to protect the court’s process and the forum it provides. A statement must not contain misleading or ambiguous material. Issues must not be avoided or left unresolved by a formulation which effectively fudges them.
4. Here, the proposed disavowal of blackmail did not make clear whether the allegations that Ms Thomas had demanded £50,000 and later £100,000 were withdrawn, denied, or accepted as having some legitimate explanation. The word blackmail had no independent significance in the published judgment; it summarised the allegations and evidence relied on at the earlier interlocutory stage.
5. The earlier injunction decision had necessarily assessed the likelihood of success at trial under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the limited and untested evidence then before the court. The court’s public explanation of the ex parte procedure was therefore material to the proposed vindication, but could not properly be contradicted by an unclear statement.

The judgment itself records an earlier interlocutory decision in the same proceedings:

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): an interim injunction was granted and continued, with reasons published in [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB).
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): permission to make the proposed statement in open court was refused.