UK: Undesirable Conduct Not Sufficient to Strike Out Defences

Last Updated: 3 March 2003

The trial of Douglas and Zeta-Jones v Hello! Limited and Others has received prominent coverage in both the broadsheet and tabloid newspapers over the last few weeks. Analyses of the privacy laws in this country have been mixed in with snippets about, and commentary on, the evidence given at the High Court by the film stars, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones. One procedural development in the case which did not receive much attention, but which is of interest to those involved in litigation, was the unsuccessful application by the claimants to strike out some of the defences. This decision indicates that only in very exceptional cases will defences be struck out for undesirable conduct and serious transgressions of the rules.


When Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married in November 2000 in New York they gave OK! magazine the exclusive rights to publish photographs of their wedding. However the rival magazine, Hello!, obtained some unauthorised photographs. Hello! printed the unauthorised photographs, but the claimants (Douglas, Zeta-Jones and the publishers of OK!) obtained an injunction to restrain their publication. The Hello! defendants (namely the publishers and distributors of Hello! and related magazines) appealed to the Court of Appeal against the injunction. Two separate hearings were held and the injunction was discharged. This allowed Hello! to publish the unauthorised photographs.

The claimants continued the action against the Hello! defendants for damages for breaches of confidentiality, privacy and the Data Protection Act 1998 and also interference with their respective rights and businesses, including conspiracy. The claimants subsequently added further defendants to their claim, including the photographer who had supplied the unauthorised photographs and a media consultant to Hello! magazine. Before trial the claimants sought permission to re-amend their particulars of claim, in light of information which had emerged following the joinder of one of the further defendants, and applied for the defences of the Hello! defendants to be struck out. A further application by two of the defendants was made to dismiss the claims against them.

Application to strike out the defences

The grounds for the application were that the Hello! defendants had interfered with the course of justice and/or put the fairness of the trial in jeopardy in that they:

  1. made false statements to the Court of Appeal during the injunction hearings, knowingly or without an honest belief in their truth, and
  2. deliberately destroyed or disposed of documents, and
  3. made false disclosure statements, knowingly or without an honest belief in their truth.


Judgment on the applications was given by Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice-Chancellor, shortly before the trial commenced ([2003] EWHC 55). He allowed the amendments and refused to strike out the defences or dismiss the claims against two of the defendants.

The Vice-Chancellor found that the case advanced by Hello! before the Court of Appeal in the injunction hearings had been based on false statements by Hello! witnesses, each of whom knew that his or her statement was false or misleading in certain respects. In relation to the destruction of documents and the failure to give proper disclosure, the Hello! defendants had admitted those allegations, but sought to minimise their importance. They admitted that they had failed to preserve any document in electronic form and destroyed or failed to preserve all or most of the documents passing between them and the media consultant, and that their disclosure was therefore defective, as alleged by the claimants. However, the Hello! Defendants argued that the false evidence was due to the speed of preparing the application to the Court of Appeal, the destruction of documents was due to "muddle or misunderstanding" and the failure to give adequate disclosure was due to "occupational hazard". None of these arguments were accepted by the judge who considered that the actions by the Hello! defendants were deliberate (no criticism was made of the solicitors involved).

The Vice-Chancellor held, however, that the deployment of the false evidence in the Court of Appeal did not interfere with the course of justice and/or put the fairness of the trial in jeopardy because of the admissions by those defendants or the findings of falsity.

In relation to the destruction of documents, the Vice-Chancellor drew a distinction between those documents destroyed or disposed of before the proceedings commenced, and those destroyed or disposed of after the commencement. As to documents destroyed before proceedings commenced, he followed the recent decision of the appeal court in the Australian state of Victoria in British American Tobacco Australian Services Limited v Cowell and McCabe [2002] VSCA 197 that the criteria for the court’s intervention is whether destruction or disposal amounts to an attempt to pervert the course of justice. He found that there was no evidence to suggest that these documents, including e-mails, had been destroyed in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Although the Vice-Chancellor found that documents had been deliberately destroyed after the commencement of proceedings and false disclosure statements were made, he stated that the issue to be decided was whether the rules had been transgressed and, if so, whether a fair trial was still possible (Arrow Nominees Inc. v Blackledge [2001] BCC 591). He quoted Chadwick LJ in the Arrow case who adopted the observations of Millett J in the earlier case of Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd (The Times, 5 March 1988) in stating :

"…the object of the rules as to discovery is to secure the fair trial of the action in accordance with the due process of the Court; and that, accordingly, a party is not to be deprived of his right to a proper trial as a penalty for disobedience of those rules – even if such disobedience amounts to contempt for or defiance of the court – if that object is ultimately secured by (for example) the late production of a document which has been withheld".

The Vice-Chancellor accepted that unless a litigant’s conduct puts the fairness of the trial in jeopardy or amounts to such an abuse of process as to prevent the court from doing justice, then the litigant will not be deprived from taking further part in the proceedings.

In this case, the Vice-Chancellor found that the majority of the documents known to have been disposed of or destroyed had now been supplied by the other party to those communications. Although he noted that there may have been manuscript notes on the destroyed documents which were not now available and he inferred there would have been further material undisclosed documents, he concluded that this was not sufficient to strike out either the whole or any part of the defence. He referred to the statement of Millett J in the Logicrose case as follows:

"I do not think that it would be right to drive a litigant from the judgment seat without a determination of the issues as a punishment for his conduct, however deplorable, unless there was a real risk that that conduct would render the further conduct of proceedings unsatisfactory. The court must always guard itself against the temptation of allowing its indignation to lead to a miscarriage of justice."

The Vice-Chancellor then accepted that the court could strike out part of a defence, by reference to specific issues (as held in the BAT case). However, he did not think that this was appropriate in this case. The claimants would have to prove the relevant issues against the other defendants and he did not consider there was a real risk that there couldn’t be a fair trial on those issues, given the documentary evidence available and the ability of the trial judge to draw inferences. Similarly, he found that the absence of documents which may have assisted in cross-examination, did not justify striking out parts of the defences.


This decision is a clear indication that only in very exceptional cases will a court find that a litigant is determined to prevent a fair trial from occurring. In this case, even clear disregard of the disclosure rules and conduct which left "a very great deal to be desired" was not sufficient to persuade the judge that a fair trial was no longer possible.

© Herbert Smith 2003

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions