Judge says future breaches may trigger contempt proceedings after draft ruling leaked to client’s husband
A High Court judge has issued a sharp warning to solicitors after an embargoed draft judgment was accidentally forwarded to a claimant’s husband, underscoring that even unintended breaches of court instructions may lead to future contempt proceedings.
His Honour Judge Paul Matthews, sitting in the High Court, dealt with the case of Bernadette Rogers v Andrew Wills in which a confidential draft judgment was inadvertently disclosed to a third party. The draft ruling had been distributed under standard embargo conditions three days before formal hand down—sent first to counsel, then to instructing solicitors, and finally on to the claimant, Bernadette Rogers.
The court later learned that Rogers’ email account automatically forwarded the document to her husband, who then read the entire judgment with her in order to check for typos. The incident came to light only after the solicitors discovered the breach, and the firm’s senior partner immediately notified the court.
Judge Matthews acknowledged that both Rogers and her legal team had apologised. Rogers explained it had been an “unintended disclosure,” while the firm accepted responsibility for not taking preventative measures to avoid the issue.
However, the judge used the ruling to issue broader guidance: “The breach of an embargo on a draft judgment is a serious legal matter. It may lead to proceedings for contempt of court, and punishment in appropriate cases.”
Embed from Getty ImagesHe emphasised that the terms of the embargo prohibit disclosure of both the draft judgment and its substance, and that this should be explicitly conveyed to clients receiving such materials. “The clearer the instructions to the lay client are, the better,” he advised.
While the law firm’s communication did not make that element express, the judge stopped short of imposing any sanction. He accepted that they had not failed in principle to advise their client on confidentiality obligations. “It is simply a pity that she did not understand its extent,” he said.
Importantly, Judge Matthews warned solicitors to ensure robust safeguards when handling embargoed materials, particularly in relation to how emails are managed. “Solicitors must take steps to ensure that there is not an inadvertent forwarding—automatic or not—of such material to third parties,” he wrote.
He reiterated that the process of sharing draft judgments ahead of time is a privilege, not a right. “Lay parties to litigation really do have to understand that the circulation of draft judgments is intended to facilitate the most effective and economical way of handing down judgment,” he said. “If laypeople cannot deal with this, judges will not be able to trust them with draft judgments in the future.”
Although Judge Matthews decided to take no further action in this instance due to the absence of malicious intent or harm, he ended with a warning: “On a future occasion, the court may not be so generous.”
The case has become another high-profile reminder of the tight restrictions surrounding court embargoes, echoing other recent warnings from senior judges. It serves as a prompt for legal professionals to tighten internal protocols, especially when clients receive sensitive materials electronically.
