header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Embargoes: ‘I saw it first!’

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
30 September 2022 / Mary Young , Rebecca Ryan
Issue: 7996 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail
Placing restrictions on the sharing of draft judgments risks creating a host of problems for legal teams & their clients, as Mary Young & Rebecca Ryan explain
  • Seemingly in response to recent breaches of the embargo over draft judgments, some judges have begun to hand these down with additional conditions on circulation. 
  • Some drafts have been provided on extremely short notice, with parties or instructing solicitors first having sight of the judgment at practically the same time as the public and press. This can create difficulties for both clients and their legal teams, for a number of reasons.

It has long been the practice of civil courts who have reserved judgment to send a draft embargoed judgment to parties and their legal teams (counsel and instructing solicitors) in advance (usually a day or two) of the judgment being formally handed down publicly.

The purpose of handing down judgment in this way is ‘to enable the parties to make suggestions for the correction of errors, prepare submissions and agree

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll