header-logo header-logo

Private Eye wins right to name Michael Napier

28 May 2009
Issue: 7371 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Freedom of Information
printer mail-detail

Appeal court ruling hailed as victory for freedom of speech

Disciplinary rulings against solicitors can be made public, the Court of Appeal has unanimously ruled in a case brought by former Law Society president Michael Napier against Private Eye.

In Napier & Irwin Mitchell v Pressdram Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 443, the court dismissed an appeal by Napier, senior partner of Irwin Mitchell, to prevent Private Eye publishing information relating to the outcome of both a complaint by the Law Society against Napier and an ombudsman’s report regarding the Law Society’s handling of the complaint.

Napier had sought an injunction to prevent Private Eye identifying him, on the grounds of confidentiality.

Lords Justices Hughes, Toulson and Sullivan considered whether the complainant owed a duty to Napier not to reveal the fact the adjudication panel found he acted in breach of the Law Society’s conflict of interest rules and decided to reprimand him, or the fact that its findings were upheld by the appeal panel.

On the argument that confidentiality was necessary to protect the solicitor under investigation, Toulson LJ said: “It would only serve to assist the solicitor if the complaint is found to be justified.

“If unjustified, the duty would be contrary to the interests of the solicitor. And it is singularly unattractive to argue that confidentiality should be recognised by the law in order to protect the interests of a solicitor against whom an adverse finding has been made.

“The purpose of the scheme is not to protect the reputations of solicitors against whom adverse findings are made. The purpose of the scheme is to provide a proper means of regulating the profession and maintaining public confidence in it.”

Robin Shaw, partner at Davenport Lyons, which acted for Private Eye, says: “This result helps to put a brake on the ever-increasing efforts of celebrities and the rich and powerful to gag the media through the use of the law or privacy/confidentiality from publishing things they would like to keep from
the public gaze and is an important victory for freedom of speech.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Writing in NLJ this week, Thomas Rothwell and Kavish Shah of Falcon Chambers unpack the surprise inclusion of a ban on upwards-only rent reviews in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll