Clearsprings Ready Homes Limited, R (on the application of) v Swindon Magistrates Court

Disclosure of the substance of an embargoed draft judgment to a non-party may amount to contempt where it breaches the embargo and is a deliberate act performed with knowledge that the embargo applies. An ulterior intention to interfere with the administration of justice is unnecessary.

Where the court considers that contempt may have been committed, it must first decide whether that threshold is met and then decide whether to proceed. The second decision is discretionary and requires consideration of the gravity of the alleged contempt, the importance of enforcing the embargo, the circumstances of the breach, other relevant facts and the overriding objective.

The court had previously dismissed the claimant’s judicial review claim concerning a prosecution for alleged breaches of the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006. Before formal hand-down of that judgment, the claimant’s solicitor sent the Home Office, which was not a party, an email disclosing the substance of the decision.

This second judgment considered whether the disclosure breached the embargo and whether the court should commence contempt proceedings on its own initiative under CPR 81.6. The matter was determined on the papers.

1. The solicitor’s email disclosed the substance of the court’s decision to a non-party. It breached confidence and the embargo and may have constituted contempt. The disclosure was deliberate rather than accidental. The solicitor knew that the draft judgment was embargoed, that disclosure was restricted to the parties and their representatives, and that breach could amount to contempt. Her absence of an intention to breach the embargo or interfere with the administration of justice did not prevent the threshold from being met.

2. Under CPR 81.6, the court must adopt a two-stage approach. It must first decide whether contempt may have been committed. If so, it must then exercise its discretion whether to proceed. Relevant considerations include the gravity of the alleged contempt, the importance of enforcing the embargo, the circumstances of the breach, other relevant facts and the overriding objective.

3. The court was satisfied that determination on the papers was proportionate. Although observance of an embargo is important to preserving the practice of circulating draft judgments, further proceedings were unnecessary. The harm was limited and modest, the error was promptly identified and corrected, culpability was low, and the breach was promptly acknowledged and candidly reported. The solicitor’s full and unreserved apology, and her acceptance of the true implications of the embargo, were also material.

4. No further contempt proceedings were commenced. The observations in the judgment were an adequate marking of the breach and an appropriate warning for future cases.

This was a further judgment in the same judicial review proceedings. The court had heard the claim on 22 and 23 October 2024 and, on 26 November 2024, dismissed the judicial review claim. This judgment concerned only the alleged breach of the embargo surrounding that earlier judgment.