Wild Justice & Anor, R (on the application of) v Natural England

A Court Embargo on a confidential draft judgment is fundamentally different from a Journalism Embargo. A recipient must not disclose the draft, its substance or the outcome to the press or anyone else before the final judgment has been formally handed down, even if a separate press embargo applies. On an alleged breach, the court must determine both whether the embargo was breached and whether contempt questions arise under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 81.6(1). Any breach must be reported promptly. A significant breach may be addressed by a narrative judgment explaining what went wrong, without contempt where the evidence and circumstances do not warrant it. Solicitors should clearly explain the legal embargo and identify authorised recipients.

The judgment concerned a confidential embargoed draft judgment circulated after a hearing and before hand-down in proceedings brought by Wild Justice and Badger Trust against Natural England, with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as interested party. Badger Trust’s chief executive sent a press release to 85 members of the press at 9.26 am on 26 June 2026, before the final judgment was received and before the 10 am hand-down. The central issues were whether this breached the Court Embargo and whether contempt questions arose under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 81.6(1). The court considered the explanation, evidence, apologies and remedial action on the papers.

Outcome. The court found a significant breach of the Court Embargo. It accepted that the breach resulted from human error and miscommunication, and concluded that no question of contempt arose. A narrative judgment explaining what went wrong was the necessary, appropriate and proportionate response. Badger Trust agreed to pay £900 towards the costs of preparing the Secretary of State’s submissions.

1. Nature of the embargo. A Court Embargo is fundamentally different from a Journalism Embargo. A party receiving a confidential embargoed draft judgment must not disclose the draft, its substance or the outcome to the press or anyone else before the finalised judgment has been formally handed down. A press release sent before hand-down therefore breached the Court Embargo, notwithstanding its later Journalism Embargo.
2. Dual enquiry. The court adopted the dual enquiry identified in R (Glaister) v Assistant Coroner for North Wales [2025] EWHC 1018 (Admin): first, determining the facts and circumstances and whether the Court Embargo was breached; secondly, addressing the contempt questions under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 81.6(1).
3. Notification duty. Any embargo breach must be drawn to the court’s attention as soon as it is identified, regardless of whether it has come to anyone else’s attention. The prompt investigation, remedial advice, candid reporting and updates by the solicitors discharged that duty. The court applied the principle stated in Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet [2022] EWCA Civ 368.
4. Contempt and practical guidance. The breach was significant, but the evidence showed lack of awareness by the person who sent the release, prompt apologies, full explanations and urgent remedial action. The court would not castigate the error through hindsight. Solicitors should explain the legal meaning of an embargo separately from a press embargo and identify in advance the group authorised to receive the draft.