Draft judgments

The Court of Appeal confirmed twice last year that sharing a draft judgment (which is sent to the parties and their lawyers on the basis that they are kept confidential) is a serious matter. In Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet it was confirmed that lawyers cannot share the draft with other lawyers at their firm.

In Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd & Ors, one of the parties told another firm of lawyers the outcome of the judgment (but did not share the draft judgment itself). Those lawyers had a close professional interest in the case but had not been instructed to conduct it (although they did liaise closely with the firm that had been instructed).

The Court of Appeal confirmed that a contempt may have been committed here, even though the client had not realised he was flouting the embargo. The Court of Appeal said that there is "an argument that liability for contempt of this kind is strict, regardless of whether there is an intention to breach the court's rules".

However, given the limited extent of the disclosure, with those told of the outcome having been asked to keep the information confidential, and given the court was quickly informed of the breach, together with an explanation and apology from the client, the Court of Appeal decided not to impose any sanction.