| CONTEMPT OF COURT — Court proceedings — Hearing in private — Publication of information — Order made for hearing in private — No order prohibiting publication of information produced at private hearing — Whether publication constituting contempt of court — Administration of Justice Act 1960, s 12(1) — CPR, r 39.2(3)
AF Noonan (Architectural Practice) Ltd v Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Community Football Club Ltd and another
CA: Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sir Igor Judge P and Buxton LJ: 2 July 2007
The publication of information concerning proceedings before a court sitting in private did not constitute contempt of court unless that information came within a category specified in s12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 as amended or the court expressly prohibited that publication.
The Court of Appeal so held, dismissing the appeal of the claimant, A F Noonan (Architectural Practice) Ltd, against the striking out by Richards J on 11 May 2006 of its application for an order that the first defendant, Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Community Football Club Ltd, be fined for contempt of court.
BUXTON LJ said that a long-standing dispute between the parties had culminated in the presentation of a winding up petition by the claimant against the defendant. The defendant had applied for an injunction restraining further process on the petition, and succeeded on an application under CPR r 39.2(3)(a)(c), opposed by the claimant, for the proceedings to be heard in private. At the substantive hearing in private the judge, holding that part of the debt was due, granted an injunction against advertising the petition until a specific date when the due amount was to be paid. Failing payment, the petition could thereafter be advertised. In the interim the defendant’s chairman gave an interview to a reporter which was published in the local newspaper and included matters disclosed at the private hearing. The claimant was inhibited by the injunction from putting his case in public. The claimant brought proceedings for an order that the defendant be fined for contempt of court for publishing matters heard in private. Whether the publication amounted to contempt depended on the interaction of s 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 on contempt of court and CPR r 39.2(3) under which the judge had ordered the hearing to be in private. The plain effect of s 12(1) was that the publication of information concerning proceedings before any court sitting in private was not a contempt of court unless either it came within one of the specified categories in s 12(1) (a)-(d), such as the court’s inherent jurisdiction over minors, the Children Act 1989, mental health or national security, or the court expressly prohibited the publication of the information under s 12(1)(e) of the 1960 Act. In the present case contempt of court could not arise unless the court had expressly ordered a prohibition on publication. The judge had not made such an order. The claimant argued that the order under CPR r 39.2(3) required in terms that all information relating to the proceedings be kept secret, and that if that order were breached it constituted a contempt of court in itself. That argument was rejected. A person committing a contempt of court could be punished. Penal consequences did not normally follow from a mere inference. The claimant’s argument that an order under CPR r 39.2(3) expressly fell within s 12(1)(e) was rejected for the same reason. The application failed because the contempt of court order sought was not within the jurisdiction of the court.
SIR IGOR JUDGE P gave a concurring judgment.
SIR ANTHONY CLARKE MR agreed.
|
