Case No. EWHC-1023-(IPEC)

20.As appears from the CGW case, the only disclosures that the Defendants were permitted to make in relation to the draft judgment (other than to their legal representatives) were to persons internally who fell within the category of those who needed to know in order to fulfil the purposes referred to in paragraph 3 above. In his statement, Mr Younas accepts that the advice he had received from Mr Blum from the start went even further and was that he should not tell anyone about the draft judgment without first speaking to Mr Blum and also that there should be a further discussion about who needed to be informed of the result in order to prepare for the formal hand down. Internal disclosures by the Defendants21.Despite this, on 12th April (and without first checking with Mr Blum), Mr Younas informed the following four Muzmatch employees of the outcome of the case:a.Sim Ahmed – Head of Marketing; b.Peter McCurrach – Chief Technical Officer; c.Andrew Springer – Head of Mobile; and d.Laura Oades – Designer. 22.Mr Younas explained that he told Mr Ahmed so that they could together prepare a press release for publication after the hand down. It seems to me (and Match accepts) that this fell within the scope of what was permissible under CPR PD40E, as explained by Sir Geoffrey Vos MR in the CGW case (see paragraph 3 above). 23.There is, however, an issue as to whether the three other people named above should have been told about the outcome of the case. Mr Younas stated that they were told so they could start thinking about the technical and design changes that Muzmatch may be required to make. Match asserts that that was not a proper purpose. It argues that, as a hold over order was agreed by the parties shortly after 12th April and as the Defendants were planning to appeal (and intended to keep trading as Muzmatch pending that appeal), there was no need for these people to be thinking about technical and design changes at that stage. I do not agree. 24.In the first place, it seems to me that the Defendants, in the immediate aftermath of receiving a draft judgment which was clearly likely to have very serious repercussions on their operations, would need to consult internally in order to identify any technical and design implications that might be relevant to the Defendants in preparing submissions on the judgment, in agreeing orders on consequential matters and in preparing themselves for the publication of the judgment. CPR PD40E makes clear that such internal action is not prohibited. Mr Younas emphasised that all of these people were told that the outcome of the case was confidential and should not be shared with anyone, including friends/family or other Muzmatch employees, and there is no suggestion that any further disclosures were made by any of them.25.Second, as regards Match’s point regarding the hold over order, if (as Match says), the hold over agreement was made after 12th April, then that does not show that the earlier act of telling these people of the outcome had been improper. 26.Third, as regards Match’s point regarding the Defendants’ stated intention to appeal, I do not accept that this meant that they had no real need to consider technical or design changes. It seems to me that a party in the position of the Defendants may well wish to appeal whilst still having other possible courses of action in mind (including ones that might require technical or design changes). Indeed, it is clear from the emails on 12th April that Mr Younas was contemplating the registration of new trade-marks, which suggests that design changes were being contemplated upon publication of the judgment.27.According to Mr Younas, on 19th April, two more Muzmatch employees, Paolo Ressa and Alex Newell, were informed of the result so that they could help Mr Younas prepare a recorded video statement to be sent to customers after the handing down of the judgment. Match accepts that this falls within the scope of what is permitted. 28.Overall, therefore, whilst (given the advice that Mr Younas had received from Mr Blum) it is surprising that Mr Younas did not consult Mr Blum as to whether these various people really fell within Mr Blum’s “need to know” category of persons, I find that the internal disclosures made by the Defendants were not in breach of the embargo. I would say, however, that parties in receipt of a draft judgment should always give careful thought as to who really needs to know the result given the purposes outlined in paragraph 3 above. The greater the number of persons who are informed, the greater the risk that the disclosure will stray beyond the permitted purposes or that one of the people informed will themselves make an unlawful disclosure. Other disclosures by the Defendants29.I turn now to the other disclosures made by the Defendants. 30.Mr Younas’ evidence is that, having told Mr Ahmed of the outcome as disclosed by the draft judgment, he and Mr Ahmed worked together to prepare a press release. This release had a heading saying “EMBARGOED UNTIL 20th APRIL 10:30AM BST”, followed by the headline “Muzmatch … loses fight with Match Group to keep its name”. Given the comments of Sir Geoffrey Vos MR (see paragraph 3 above), there is nothing inherently improper in the mere preparation of a such a press release. However, in this case, on 19th April, Mr Ahmed emailed 10 journalists offering to provide them with a copy of the embargoed press release in advance of the hand down, provided those journalists agreed to comply with the embargo. Further, on that same day, Mr Younas sent messages via Twitter to 6 of those journalists stating:“…Please email [email protected] TODAY to receive an embargoed press release re the muzmatch Vs Match Group judgment (20th April 10:30am it is public).”31.Following this, the press release (with its reference to its being embargoed) was provided in advance of the hand down to various journalists who had agreed to respect the embargo. Moreover, also in advance of the hand down, Mr Younas had email exchanges and telephone conversations with some of those journalists. In these, he reiterated that the decision would only become public at 10.30 on 20th April but he also made clear, inter alia, that the Defendants intended to appeal that decision. 32.At no point did Mr Younas notify Mr Blum of what was going on with regard to the press release or of Muzmatch’s dealings with the journalists. Indeed, Mr Blum only became aware that there might be a problem when Match’s solicitors told him that Match had been contacted by journalists who were aware of the outcome of the case. This led Mr Blum to contact Mr Younas and, after that, to Muzmatch contacting the journalists asking them not to publish the press release or other materials.33.In his statement, Mr Younas makes clear that he is deeply remorseful and wholeheartedly apologises to the court for his actions regarding this disclosure of information to journalists. His explanation is that he honestly believed that he could communicate the outcome of the case and share a press release with journalists provided it was done on a strictly confidential basis and provided the information was not published before the judgment was formally handed down. He comments that, when he worked in banking, it was common for embargoed information to be dealt with in such a manner. 34.I have to say that I find Mr Younas’ explanation to be more than a little surprising given the lengths to which Mr Blum had gone to make the need for confidentiality clear. I note, in particular, Mr Blum’s initial warning “…