Court rules Fieldfisher acted in error but avoided serious consequences for embargo breach
Fieldfisher, the international law firm, has narrowly avoided contempt of court proceedings after a confidential draft judgment was mistakenly sent to journalists ahead of its official hand-down date. The error, described as “serious” by the High Court, occurred in a high-profile judicial review case concerning the tragic death of a 16-year-old boy.
The case, which was handled by Fieldfisher on behalf of the deceased’s family, became the centre of a media controversy after the firm circulated an embargoed draft judgment (CEDJ) to prominent outlets such as the BBC, Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and ITV. The CEDJ, which was supposed to remain confidential until the official ruling was made public, was sent to journalists several days in advance.
Mr Justice Fordham, who oversaw the case, called the leak a “serious error,” which could have led to contempt of court charges. The incident arose when Fieldfisher’s media manager, Nicola Pearson, misunderstood the nature of a court embargo, treating it like a regular press embargo. Court embargoes are legally binding and strictly confidential, while press embargoes are not enforceable by law but rely on an understanding between journalists and the firm that the information will not be published until a set time.
Fordham highlighted that Pearson, who is not a lawyer, mistakenly believed the embargoed judgment could be shared with the press. The court’s ruling emphasised that such confidential documents are only meant to be shared with the parties and their legal representatives until the judgment is officially released.
A critical email chain was presented in court, showing Fieldfisher partner Jill Greenfield’s confusion over the rules for distributing the judgment prior to the Thursday hand-down. While Greenfield had instructed the family to avoid discussing the judgment with anyone, Pearson contradicted this advice by arranging interviews and sending out the document to journalists.
Embed from Getty ImagesDespite seeking guidance from Fieldfisher’s general counsel, Andrew Dodd, Greenfield and Pearson failed to fully grasp the legal implications of the embargo. Dodd did not take sufficient action to ensure compliance, nor did he inform the court about the breach. The court was only alerted when journalists contacted them for comment.
The judge expressed concern over Pearson’s decision to send the judgment after being explicitly told by Dodd and Greenfield that doing so would violate the embargo. However, Fordham decided not to pursue contempt charges, noting that the breach had been rectified by the court’s judgment, which had been widely communicated.
Concluding his remarks, Fordham stated: “The primary purpose of contempt proceedings – to secure compliance with the Court Embargo – stands achieved. The seriousness with which the Court treats these matters stands fully communicated and acknowledged… So far as the Court is concerned, this judgment is enough. The enquiry has been undertaken. Sufficient clarity has been achieved. Lessons will have been learned.”
