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.
Recent case
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.
Key contact
Mark Hickson
Head of Business Development
onlineteaminbox@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)370 270 6000
Discover more
You may be interested in...
Opinion
Settling future claims: Insights from Clifford v IBM 2024
Opinion - Maternity services
New online system streamlines maternity services at The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Legal Update - Building Safety Act
Case update: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Homes and Communities v Grey GR Limited Partnership
Legal Update
Commercial contracts: Top tips before signing on the dotted line
In Person Event
Claims club, Exeter
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Duty of Candour review: Submission to the Department of Health and Social Care
Published Article
English Commercial Court rules against Russian exclusive jurisdiction clauses
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
Legal Update
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Legal Update
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Opinion
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Legal Update
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.
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] 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.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Legal Update
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.
Legal Update
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”).