Read the full judgment text of HCMP 002110/1987 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 2 June 1988 before Mayo J.
Criminal law – contempt of court – publication of information relating to proceedings heard in camera – whether marking file 'confidential' in Registry amounts to express prohibition on publication – whether publication of strategy letter to creditors interferes with due administration of justice – ex parte injunction restraining winding-up petitions – alleged breach by solicitors coordinating creditors' winding-up notices – Grand Union Insurance Company Limited obtained ex parte injunction from Jones J on 17 February 1987 restraining Aegian Insurance Company Limited and Ray Sigorta A.S. from presenting winding-up petitions, with the file later marked 'confidential' in the Registry at the applicant's afterthought request – Clyde & Co. took over conduct of the matter from Messrs. Ince & Co. and Mr. Brook wrote a letter dated 17 August 1987 to clients of brokers Sedgwick and Seascope proposing a coordinated strategy of pooled winding-up notices against Grand Union – whether the 17 February 1987 order expressly prohibited publication of information relating to the proceedings for the purposes of s.5 of the Judicial Proccedings (Publication of Reports) Cap. 287 – held that prohibition must be in clear terms and not by mere inference from marking the file 'confidential' – following Attorney General v. Leveller Magazine Ltd. and others [1979] AC 440 an express order is required – whether publication of the letter interfered with the due administration of justice – applying Scott v. Scott [1913] AC 417 the interference must render impracticable the administration of justice or frustrate the attainment of justice – held that the letter was addressed to intended clients with legitimate interests, was couched in moderate terms, and concerned a future independent course of action not the issues in MP 351/1987 – conduct analogous to Re London Flour Co. and Re New Gold Coast Exploration Co. which was held not to be contempt – whether the letter pressured the applicant into settlement – applying Lord Cross's speech in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers [1974] AC 273, private persuasion unaccompanied by unlawful threats is not contempt – motion dismissed – applicant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clyde & Co. were guilty of contempt – costs reserved.
Legal issues: Whether the order expressly prohibited publication of information relating to the proceedings · Whether the publication interfered with the due administration of justice · Whether the proposed strategy amounted to pressuring the applicant into settlement
Outcome: Motion for contempt of court dismissed against Clyde & Co.; the applicant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clyde & Co. were guilty of contempt of court.