Richard v British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor

A statement in open court recording a bona fide settlement should generally be permitted unless there is abuse, significant unfairness, or another sufficient reason to refuse approval. The court must consider the interests of non-settling parties, but they cannot dictate the wording or require their case to be reproduced in full. A fair and proportionate summary of their case is sufficient. The threshold for intervention is high; minor disputes and nit-picking do not justify refusal. A statement may record the settling parties’ agreed position, including matters still disputed with another party, provided it does not misrepresent that party’s case or prejudice a fair trial.

The claimant brought privacy and related claims against the BBC and the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police arising from publicity surrounding a police search of his home. The claimant reached a settlement with the Chief Constable and sought permission to read an agreed statement in open court. The BBC, which remained a defendant, objected to various passages, including descriptions of its reporter’s conduct, disputed factual matters, the alleged consequences of the BBC’s coverage, and the Chief Constable’s stated reason for disclosure.

The issue was whether the proposed statement was abusive, unfair to the BBC, or likely to prejudice the continuing trial, such that permission should be refused or amendments required.

1. Permission granted. The court permitted the claimant and the Chief Constable to read the proposed statement in open court, subject to one agreed amendment concerning the qualification of a statement that there was no dispute.
2. The governing principles were drawn from Barnet v Crozier [1987] 1 WLR 272 and Murray v Associated Newspapers Limited. Settlement statements serve a valuable public purpose and should generally be facilitated where the settlement is bona fide. Permission should be refused only for a sufficient reason, including abuse or significant unfairness to another party.
3. The statement must be fair and proportionate. A non-settling party’s case may be summarised fairly without reproducing every detail. The non-settling party cannot dictate the language used by the settling parties or insist that its own version of disputed facts be included.
4. A statement may set out the settling parties’ agreed position even where it conflicts with the continuing defendant’s case or concerns an issue that remains for trial. Such a statement is not itself a finding of fact or evidential material affecting the trial.
5. The prospect of prejudice to a fair trial was insufficient. The trial would be by a judge, who could disregard non-evidential material. Even in a jury trial, Barnet v Crozier demonstrated that such prejudice might not arise.
6. The BBC’s objections concerning the naming of its reporter, alternative descriptions of what he knew, the timing of events, alleged causation, the consequences of the coverage, and the Chief Constable’s stated reason for disclosure did not establish unfairness, abuse, or any other sufficient reason to refuse permission.