[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> A v B & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 496 (28 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/496.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 496

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE CIVIL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		The Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London Thursday 28 March 2002

Friday 28 March 2002

1. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: I am hearing this application in the vacation at short notice because the court that heard the appeal in the case of A v B & C had yesterday refused to extend a stay of the discharge of an injunction which had been granted by Jack J originally on 5 July 2001.
2. A stay was granted after the court gave its decision on 11 March 2002. It was subject to conditions. The first was that the claimant had until 22 March 2002 to file a petition of appeal; that he was to have until Friday 29 March (that is today) to seek a further stay from the House of Lords; and it was indicated that there should be liberty to the claimant to apply on paper and on notice to this court in respect of the stay.
3. The court yesterday having indicated that it was not prepared to extend the stay, a letter was written by Mr Wilson QC to the court placing before the court additional material that had not been placed before the court hitherto, together with a statement of a Mr Chapman. In those circumstances, although the two other members of the court are not available, I thought it right to give Mr Wilson an opportunity to advance his argument orally, because I appreciated that unless a further stay was granted, Mr Wilson's client would be in the position that the damage that he was seeking to avoid, namely a publication about his activities in The People newspaper, would take place which would deprive him of the main benefits of the action which he had brought and which had been the subject-matter of the original application to Jack J.
4. However, when this court granted the stay, in the very limited terms which it did, it was because, as is apparent from the terms themselves, the court was very much in two minds as to whether this was an appropriate case in which to grant a stay; and it was for that reason that the court imposed the strict conditions to which I have referred.
5. Although for the purposes of the present application I do not propose to go into the detail of what happened after 11 March, it does appear to me that the claimant or his advisers did not do all that they could have done to emphasise to the House of Lords the urgency of the matter as early as they should, bearing in mind that the vacation was due to start on 28 March and experienced legal advisers, such as those that are involved in this particular litigation, should have been well aware of the problems of having the application heard within the period of the stay which had originally been granted.
6. Furthermore, the material which was put before the three members of the court for the purposes of considering the application for a further stay was deficient in some respects. The newspaper had made it clear that in relation to the application for a further stay, they were seeking to rely upon the damage which would be done to them if the further stay was granted. In support of that, they drew attention to the activities of another newspaper (and indeed provided a copy of an article in that other newspaper) which suggested that the situation could well change from what it was when it was last before the Court of Appeal in two respects: first, that the claimant had told his wife about what was the subject of the injunction; and, secondly, that the claimant was at least negotiating with another newspaper with a view to selling to that newspaper his version of the events, perhaps a spoiling tactic so far as the defendant was concerned.
7. Those were matters to which the full court (that is, myself and the two other Lord Justices involved) did attach some significance when considering the further application. It was only after we had refused that further application that an attempt was then made to place before the court material which had not been provided earlier. In his submissions today Mr Wilson seeks now to rely upon those matters.
8. As we made clear in the judgment of the court in the main appeal, this case has an unfortunate history of repeated applications relating to the same matter, and that history has now been repeated in regard to the application for the further stay. Finally, there is the problem that we had given our decision on the application for a further stay. That order was sealed and if my sitting in my vacation capacity was to interfere with that order, that is certainly something which the court will not normally do.
9. Mr Wilson has various ingenious methods of getting over the last difficulty. Speaking for myself, if justice required the difficulties to be got over, it is possible (I do not so decide) that the difficulties will be overcome. I therefore propose to deal with the matter in a broad way as one of discretion.
10. While it appears to me that this is a situation where normally the court would be prepared willingly to grant a further stay if the House of Lords was unable to hear an application itself for a stay, it does seem to me that now the balance is firmly against extending the stay. As I indicated, when the case was before the court after the court had given judgment, it was marginal as to whether a stay should be granted at all. One of the main reasons why the court was prepared to grant a stay was because the case was put forward in the Court of Appeal as one where the claimant was anxious to protect his wife and child from the damaging consequences of the publicity. But it appears that the claimant has himself said something to his wife (apparently not the full story) as to what has happened, and that alters that factor. In addition, there has been very considerable other publicity in relation to this case and the consequence of that, as Mr Spearman QC has pointed out in the course of his submissions, is that other newspapters have been making approaches, even to the claimant's wife. In all the circumstances, I think that Mr Spearman is probably right in saying that this is a story which now will inevitably emerge, irrespective of the order which the court has made, and it is one where the only party who will be disadvantaged if the stay is continued is the defendant, The People newspaper. It seems to me that, bearing in mind that they were successful in the Court of Appeal and had a strong judgment in their favour, it would be wrong to continue the stay.
11. I am therefore not prepared to interfere with the order which had previously been made for the reasons I have sought in outline to set out in this judgment. Accordingly this application is dismissed.
ORDER: Application refused with costs summarily assessed at £4,000. (Order not part of approved judgment)