Court finds significant breach of Court Embargo but rules contempt proceedings are unnecessary
The High Court has reinforced the importance of observing Court Embargo rules after finding that Badger Trust breached the embargo governing an embargoed draft judgment by sending a press release to journalists before the judgment had been formally handed down.
In a judgment handed down on 28 July 2026, Fordham J considered whether the circumstances surrounding the premature circulation of a press release amounted to a breach of the Court Embargo and whether contempt proceedings should follow.
The judgment arose in The King (on the application of Wild Justice and Badger Trust) v Natural England (No.3) and concerned events following the circulation of a confidential embargoed draft judgment to the parties.
Fordham J described the case as another example highlighting what he called the “vital distinction” between a Court Embargo and a Journalism Embargo. The court emphasised that the two concepts are fundamentally different and warned that confusion between them has repeatedly led to breaches of court procedure.
The court found that Badger Trust had breached the Court Embargo after its chief executive emailed a press release to 85 journalists before the judgment had been handed down and before the parties had received the final version of the judgment. Although the press release was marked with a later journalism embargo, Fordham J held that sending it before formal hand-down constituted a breach of the Court Embargo.
However, after investigating the circumstances, the court concluded that contempt proceedings were not justified. The judgment records that the breach resulted from a misunderstanding within Badger Trust about the timing of distributing the press release rather than any deliberate disregard of the court’s requirements. Fordham J accepted the explanation provided and described the mistake as human error.
The judgment also commended the conduct of the claimants’ solicitors, Leigh Day & Co. Fordham J found that the firm’s solicitors and counsel had acted with complete propriety throughout the matter. The court noted that the embargo obligations had been clearly communicated to the claimants and that the firm’s partner, Ricardo Gama, acted promptly after discovering the breach by alerting the parties involved, advising on remedial steps and informing the court without delay.
Badger Trust chair Rosie Wood accepted responsibility on behalf of the organisation and apologised to both the solicitors and the court. The judgment records that she recognised the breach immediately once it came to light and acknowledged that clearer communication internally could have prevented the error.
Fordham J also highlighted practical steps suggested by Leigh Day to reduce the risk of similar incidents. These include explaining to clients that a Court Embargo differs from a Journalism Embargo and identifying in advance which individuals should receive embargoed draft judgments and related information. The judge described such measures as an important initiative in preventing future confusion.
For solicitors, the ruling serves as a reminder that embargoed draft judgments and their substance must not be communicated outside those authorised to receive them before formal hand-down. The court reiterated that any breach of a Court Embargo is a serious matter that will always be investigated and may amount to contempt of court, even though the circumstances in this case did not justify further proceedings.