Case No. EWHC-1023-(IPEC)

4. The court will hand down its judgment in an approved final form. Counsel should therefore submit any list of typing corrections and other obvious errors in writing as a separate Word document or by a separate email. (Nil returns are required) to the clerk to Nicholas Caddick Q.C. by via email at [omitted], by 4pm on 19 April 2022 so that changes can be incorporated, if the judge accepts them, in the handed down judgment. 5. The formal hand down of the judgment will take place on 20th April 2022.7.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.The position of Bristows13.I will deal first with the actions of Bristows as the Defendants’ solicitors and I will say, immediately, that I am fully satisfied that no criticism attaches to their conduct in this matter. 14.On 12th April, having received the draft judgment but before forwarding a copy to his client, Mr Blum telephoned Mr Younas. In this call, he made it very clear that Mr Younas should not tell anyone about the outcome of the case without discussing it first with Mr Blum. This was because the draft judgment and the outcome of the case were confidential and on a “need to know” basis, otherwise there was a risk of contempt of court. 15.Later that same day, Mr Blum sent the draft judgment to Mr Younas. His covering email was as follows:“Hi Shaz,As discussed- PLEASE DO NOT TELL ANYONE YET OR DO ANYTHING WITH THIS JUDGMENT- we can discuss soon who you can tell in order to prepare for hand down. We/you have to keep this confidential until after hand down on 20 April. Otherwise it is contempt of court.Password is: qwerty12422BestJeremy”16.Later, again that same day, Mr Younas emailed Mr Blum asking him to arrange to file applications to register new trade marks. However, Mr Blum declined, stating that:……“On the TM registrations [redacted] we can prepare the filing but not actually file anything until after 10.30am on 20 April. Point 3 on the Embargo at the top says: No action is to be taken (other than internally) in response to the draft before judgment has been formally pronounced. A breach of any of these obligations may be treated as a contempt of court. The only reason you are filing is in response to the draft so if we filed the new applications, I would worry the other side says you are in breach of the embargo.”17.In a phone conversation with Mr Younas on 13th April, Mr Blum once again stated that the draft judgment was confidential and under embargo and that the only steps that could be taken were internal steps to prepare for hand down on 20th April. He also stated that the outcome of the case could only be disclosed internally on a need to know basis to prepare for hand down. Finally, he explained that any press release could only be published after the judgment had been handed down. 18.On 19th April, the day before the judgment was handed down, Mr Younas emailed Mr Blum seeking confirmation as to the handing down and saying that “we have journos ready”. Mr Blum took this to mean that the journalists were aware that judgment was to be handed down and his assistant, Marc Linsner, responded saying:“Hi Shaz, The judgment is due to be handed down at 10:30am tomorrow morning, but we will confirm once the judgment has been handed down to ensure no steps are taken before then. Thanks Marc”.19.Given this evidence, I accept Mr Blum’s statement that he took robust steps to ensure that his clients were aware of the obligations of confidentiality surrounding the draft judgment and that they should not take any steps until after the formal hand down. In my judgment, no blame attaches to Mr Blum or to Bristows in relation to what has occurred.