To receive a judgment under embargo is to be given a draft judgment on highly confidential terms. Put simply, parties and their legal representatives are given a ‘sneak peek’ of the trial’s outcome before the decision is handed down publicly. The substance of an embargoed judgment cannot be disclosed to another person or used in the public domain.
In most cases, the confidentiality attaching to embargoed judgments is honoured – but in some cases, it is breached. The consequences of breaching an embargoed judgement can find those responsible in contempt of court.
This article considers how legal professionals and their clients should treat judgments of this nature and avoid the dangers of breach.
The purpose of circulating embargoed judgments
Mr Justice Meade, in Optis Cellular Technology Inc v Apple Retail UK Limited, explained that the purpose of circulating judgments in draft is twofold:
- “From the Court’s point of view, it enables the correction of typos and it also enables corrections of more substantive errors”
- “For the parties, there are a number of benefits, a major one of which is to prepare to deal with the consequences of the judgment when it is made public, because steps in the litigation have to be taken, permission to appeal has to be considered, and the presentation by the winning and losing litigants of the judgment to their investors and other stakeholders has to be considered”
The key takeaway from the decision confirms the common practice of circulating draft judgments in a limited and controlled way, particularly in cases where parties will be required to make a prompt public announcement once the judgment has been handed down.
What are the rules?
The terms of an embargoed judgment are set out in Practice Direction 40E which specifies that:
2.4. A copy of the draft judgment may be supplied, in confidence, to the parties provided that:
a. neither the draft judgment nor its substance is disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain; and
b. no action is taken (other than internally) in response to the draft judgment, before the judgment is handed down
2.6 If a party to whom a copy of the draft judgment is supplied under paragraph 2.4 is a partnership, company, government department, local authority or other organisation of a similar nature, additional copies may be distributed in confidence within the organisation, provided that all reasonable steps are taken to preserve its confidential nature and the requirements of paragraph 2.4 are adhered to.
2.7 If the parties or their legal representatives are in any doubt about the persons to whom copies of the draft judgment may be distributed they should enquire of the judge or Presiding Judge.
2.8 Any breach of the obligations or restrictions under paragraph 2.4 or failure to take all reasonable steps under paragraph 2.6 may be treated as contempt of court.
In accordance with the Practice Direction, draft judgments are commonly accompanied by a warning as to the consequences of breaching the embargo.
The Patents Court’s decision in Optis was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in InterDigital Technology Corporation v Lenovo Group which held that a mobile patent held by the US-based company InterDigital had been infringed by the Chinese company, Lenovo. On the afternoon of Friday 13 January 2023, an embargoed judgment was received by InterDigital’s UK solicitors. While clearly noting the embargoed nature of the judgment, InterDigital’s UK solicitors went on to advise their clients of the outcome.
When the embargoed judgment was passed on to Mr Mike Levin, external counsel at InterDigital’s US law firm, by email under the heading: “Confidential – Trial A appeal decision”, the outcome (but not the judgment itself) was then shared by Mr Levin with a number of others within his firm. A recipient of that email congratulated one of the UK solicitors on the outcome, who replied: “Thank you but unfortunately that is a breach of the embargo. Who else did he tell?”
In the circumstances, it was decided that there was no intention to defy the embargoed judgment and that the disclosures were limited. Accepting the apologies of those in breach, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Warby, Lord Justice Birss and Lady Justice Falk) ruled that no further exploration or investigation was necessary, and that “further proceedings would be disproportionate to any need to uphold the court’s authority”.
It might be said that this was a fortunate outcome given the fact that there had been a technical breach of the embargo. In any event, the case serves as a timely reminder to practitioners of the importance of respecting the confidentiality attaching to, and abiding by the restrictions for the circulation of, embargoed judgments.
Key legal takeaways and practical steps
- The provisions found in Practice Direction 40E are compulsory.
- The draft judgment are to be shared only with the parties and their legal representatives for the specific purpose of correcting errors, agreeing subsequent orders and preparing for publication of the outcome.
- It should be made clear when circulating the draft judgment that the contents are confidential and not for circulation beyond the permitted purposes.
- Where a draft judgment is provided, the legal representatives involved are personally responsible for ensuring compliance.
- An accurate list of recipients should be maintained by the parties’ legal representatives.
- In the event of breaching an embargoed judgment, immediate steps should be taken to inform the Court and other parties, and to investigate the breach.
You may be interested in...
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Mediation – remote or in person?
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd  EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
The Future of Mediation
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
Common AI related technology project disputes and how to prevent them
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
The Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) proposed reforms to the Pre-Action Protocols (PAPs) and the possible mandatory ADR gateway. What could this mean for your case?
In November 2021, The Civil Justice Council’s published its interim report on proposed changes to the current Pre-Action Protocols, which included a mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) gateway. In this article, we look at proposed reforms and consider what this could mean for your case.
Job applicant receives settlement due to unlawful age discrimination at interview
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
Sole director decisions: Another perspective
Covid Rent Arrears: Cinema operators’ appeals dismissed
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
Proceed with caution – covenants in franchise agreements
In the recent case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited and ano’r  EWCA Civ 889, the Court of Appeal considered the reasonableness of restrictive covenants in a franchise agreement.