![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Dickson Minto W.S. & Ors v. Bonnier Media & Anor [2002] ScotCS 137 (15th May, 2002) URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2002/137.html Cite as: [2002] ScotCS 137 |
[New search]
[Context]
[Printable version]
[Help]
Dickson Minto W.S. & Ors v. Bonnier Media & Anor [2002] ScotCS 137 (15th May, 2002)
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION |
|
P546/02
|
OPINION OF LORD CARLOWAY in the Petition of DICKSON MINTO W.S., and OTHERS Petitioners; against BONNIER MEDIA LIMITED and ANOTHER Respondents:
________________ |
Petitioners: A. Jones (Solicitor-Advocate), Ketchen & Stevens WS
Respondents: R.W. Dunlop; Haig-Scott & Co WS
11 May 2002
1. Facts
"publishing any article showing or tending to show that the petitioners and, in particular, Alastair Dickson had acted in a conflict of interest situation in respect of the business dealings between Belinda Robertson Limited, Plye Design Limited and/or Elvina Investments Limited".
The information contained in the statements of fact in the petition is reasonably described as sparse. However, although it is not set forth in averment, I was, upon enquiry, informed that the background to the application is that Mr. Dickson is involved in a relationship with one Belinda Robertson. Ms. Robertson has a substantial interest in Plye Design Ltd. and its subsidiary Belinda Robertson Ltd. Elvina Investments Ltd. are, or at least were, clients of the petitioners in respect that the petitioners have advised Elvina in the past on certain matters. Elvina have now invested in Plye Design. The petitioners maintain that they did not advise Elvina in connection with this investment. Rather, a letter from Elvina is produced to the effect that they did not regard the petitioners as acting for them in the investment and they had employed their own lawyers in the Channel Islands, at the petitioners' request, to represent their interests. This letter is slightly ambiguous in that it does not directly address the question of whether any advice had been tendered to them by the petitioners regarding the investment but perhaps that is explained by the short time available to produce precise information.
2. Submissions
3. Decision
"(1) This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.
...
(3) No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.
(4) The court must have regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to...journalistic material...to
(a) the extent to which -
(i) the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or
(ii) it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;
(b) any relevant privacy code."
In terms of this section, before I could grant interim interdict, I would have to be satisfied not only that the petitioners had a prima facie case (in the sense previously understood in cases of this nature) and the balance of convenience rested in their favour but also that upon a final determination of the case, after a proof if necessary, the petitioners would be likely (my emphasis) to succeed. It is difficult to assert that the petitioners will succeed in circumstances in which it is not known what exactly is to be published. The petitioners' fears stem from what has been said to them in relation to an enquiry of the Law Society relative to a conflict of interest and from the journalist disclosing only limited information that the article to be published will cover the subject matter of that enquiry. In response to that, the petitioners have set out, through their agents, what their position on the facts is and this ought now to be clear to the first respondents.