Lawyers leap to Carter-Ruck’s defence

  • Print
  • Comments (14)

Readers' comments (14)

  • Sorry, but the article is wrong to frame the issue as a battle between "the media" and plaintiffs - it's a question of public policy. The article is wrong to ignore the PR disaster that Carter Ruck have wrought - a client should expect their lawyer be aware of such knock-on effects. Finally, the article is wrong to suggest that Carter Ruck had a reasonable legal argument in seeking to prevent the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings - the injunction failed the "giggle test" and Carter Ruck should have known that it would never survive appeal.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The key line in this is "Lawyers accept that this was a PR disaster but that C-R was only following the rule of law..."
    We are told time and time again how lawyers are supposed to offer 'commercial' advice and not just trot out black letter law 'solutions'.
    In commercial terms it is difficult to imagine a greater catastrophe than this; C-R chancing its arm and finally (and thankfully) hitting the brick wall of Parliamentary Privilege to the utter detriment of its client (who, prior to this, most of the general public hadn't even heard of).
    The fact that other media lawyers are so quick to leap to C-R's defence is not the journalist's fault, but proof that this Gravy Train continues to roll.
    With the toothless, self-serving PCC on one side and the media lawyer battalions of the rich on the other, the UK press is neither properly regulated nor able to be censured by many of those on whom it inflicts the worst kind of damage. Between them, they contrive to create the worst of all possible worlds: a system where only the rich can defend themselves and Joe Public has virtually no chance of proper redress.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is interesting that so many comments excoriate Carter Ruck, and that Carter Ruck are to blame for the "PR disaster". We don't know what Carter Ruck advised Trafigura, but I'm sure it included advice on the risks of the action they were instructed to take. It looks to me like Trafigura took a calculated gamble, which didn't come off. The real interest, which only one comment mentions, is why the court decided to grant an order apparently interfering with Parliamentary privilege. It's part of a general constitutional development away from the absolute sovereignty of Parliament, and the answer to the question of who has ultimate sovereignty is still developing. Perhaps the Supreme Court?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What role does the press play in the doctrine of separation of powers?

    One would have thought that lawyers act upon clients' instructions.

    Policy is anothr issue all together.

    Nice article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (14)