Court of Appeal
Published July 12, 2007
A. F. Noonan (Architectural Practice) Ltd v Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Community Football Club Ltd
Before Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Sir Igor Judge, President and Lord Justice Buxton
Judgment July 2, 2007
Advertisement
It was not a contempt of court to publish information relating to proceedings sitting in private unless that information fell within one of the statutory-specific categories.
The Court of Appeal so held, dismissing the appeal of the claimant, A. F. Noonan (Architectural Practice) Ltd, against the striking out by Mr Justice Richards (unreported [2006] EWHC 2113) (Ch)) of its application for an order that the first defendant, Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Community Football Club Ltd, be fined for contempt of court.
Mr Richard Egleton for Noonan; Mr Alan Gourgey, QC, for the club.
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON said that the proceedings were directed at whether a penalty should be applied in respect of alleged contempt of court, not to other issues concerning hearings in private.
After a long standing dispute between the parties, Noonan Ltd presented a winding-up petition against the club. The club applied for an injunction to restrain further process on the petition.
Advertisement
Under rule 39.2(3)(a) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the club successfully applied for the proceedings to be heard in private. Noonan opposed that application.
It was common for winding-up petitions to be heard in private because a public hearing could damage a company if allegations were made which could not thereafter be substantiated.
At the private hearing, the judge held that part of the debt was due. He granted an injunction against advertising the petition until a stated date when the due amount was to be paid. If payment was not made, the petition could thereafter be advertised.
In the meantime, the club’s chairman gave an interview to a reporter. Published in the local newspaper, it included matters disclosed at the private hearing. Noonan was inhibited by the injunction from putting its case in public.
Noonan sought an order that the defendant be fined for contempt of court for publishing matters heard in private.
Advertisement
Whether the publication amounted to contempt depended on the interaction of section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, as amended by the Children Act 1989, on contempt of court and rule 39.2(3) under which the judge had ordered the hearing to be in private.
The plain effect of section 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 section 12(1)(a) to (e), namely, the court’s inherent jurisdiction over minors and cases under the 1989 Act, mental health, national security, secret inventions or where the court expressly prohibited publication. The judge had made no such order.
Noonan submitted that the order under rule 39.2(3) required that all information relating to the proceedings be kept secret. If that order was breached it constituted a contempt in itself. His Lordship rejected that argument.
The President gave a concurring judgment and the Master of the Rolls agreed.
Solicitors: Richard Sedgley & Co, Bournemouth; Duane Morris.