BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1580 (19 December 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1580.html Cite as: [2012] EMLR 13, [2012] WLR 782, [2012] 2 All ER 711, [2012] CP Rep 13, [2012] 1 WLR 782, [2011] EWCA Civ 1580 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2012] 1 WLR 782] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Hon Mr Justice Eady
HQ09X00298
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE ETHERTON
and
LORD JUSTICE GROSS
____________________
CHRISTOPHER HUTCHESON (formerly known as WER) |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
POPDOG LIMITED (formerly known as REW) - and – NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED |
Respondent Additional party |
____________________
Respondent unrepresented
Adrienne Page QC (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Additional party
Hearing date: 7th December 2011
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
The Master of the Rolls:
The background to this application
The issues between the parties on this application
The argument that the projected appeal is academic
The argument that the projected appeal could affect the costs order below
Concluding remarks
i) Subject to the issue relating to the costs of the Application, the projected appeal would be academic as between the parties, and I would refuse permission to appeal, because of the combination of two factors, namely, (a) although the two issues which it is said would be raised on the projected appeal are significant, they are not of outstanding public importance, and anyway might not actually be determined on the projected appeal, and (b) NGN opposes the grant of permission to appeal and would be significantly out of pocket on costs if the appeal went ahead;ii) The prospect of the order that Mr Hutcheson pay the costs of the Application being varied, even if the projected appeal were to succeed, is, at best from Mr Hutcheson's point of view, very uncertain, and it would therefore be a disproportionate reason for permitting an appeal to proceed;
iii) Accordingly, I would refuse permission to appeal;
iv) It would be wrong to end this judgment without making the following points:
a) It cannot be safely assumed that the Judge's conclusion that, notwithstanding the fact that the court had not varied or discharged the Interim Injunction, publication of the Information by NGN would not represent a breach of the Spycatcher principle because of the terms of settlement between Mr Hutcheson and NGN, would be approved by this court;b) Similarly it cannot be safely assumed that the conclusion in Jockey Club [2003] QB 462, that the the Spycatcher principle does not apply to final injunctions but only applies to interim injunctions, would be approved by this court;c) The history of these proceedings demonstrates the importance of adhering to the terms of Practice Guidance relating to Interim Non-Disclosure Orders.
Lord Justice Etherton:
Lord Justice Gross: