Case No. EWHC-1023-(IPEC)

7.On 20th April, very shortly before the formal handing down of the judgment, I was shown an email from Counsel for Match stating that Match had been approached by members of the press who were aware of the outcome of the case (namely that Match had been successful) and asking Match for its comments. The journalists concerned made clear that they would not publish anything prior to the formal handing down. 8.Later that same day, Jeremy Blum of Bristows LLP (the Defendants’ solicitors) sent an email confirming that the Defendants had been the source of the journalists’ information and indicating that he was obtaining more information with a view to providing a full explanation. 9.In response, I sent a message to the parties stating that:I am grateful to the parties for drawing this matter to my attention so promptly. I note that Mr Blum is seeking further information from his client. In view of the approach adopted by the Master of the Rolls in R (Counsel General for Wales) v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWCA Civ 181, it would be helpful if Mr Blum could ensure that the court is provided with a full written explanation from those involved in the release to the press of information concerning the result of this case. It would also be useful to have an explanation of the steps taken to draw the clients’ attention to the confidential nature of the draft judgment and its contents.Once such information is available from Mr Blum and his client, it would be helpful if Match, having considered the information, could then comment on its stance in this regard. Subject to the information and Match’s response, I will consider whether a further hearing is needed or whether I can deal with the matter on the papers. 10.On the following day, 21st April, I was provided with the 6th Witness Statement of Mr Younas on behalf of the Defendants and the 4th Statement of Mr Blum. I will deal in greater detail with the contents of these statements later in this judgment. In summary, Mr Younas described the actions that he had taken with regard to the draft judgment. He also accepted that there had been a breach of the embargo for which he apologised unreservedly. Mr Blum’s statement explained what he had done to try to ensure compliance with the embargo. 11.On 25th April, I received Match’s response in the form of written submissions from Mr Austen. These make no criticism of Bristows but are highly critical of Mr Younas who, Mr Austen submits, had breached the embargo in “a calculated and flagrant manner for publicity purposes”. Despite this, Match’s position is that it does not intend itself to initiate contempt proceedings. On 27th April, I received the Defendants’ written submissions in reply.12.Having considered the witness statements and the parties’ submissions, I have decided that it is appropriate for me to deal with the issues raised without a hearing and, instead, on the basis of the papers alone.