The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by members of the Planning Tribunal seeking a broad injunction to prevent the Sunday Business Post and other media from publishing documents circulated ahead of the Tribunal’s public hearings.
The Tribunal argued that recipients were told in writing to keep the documents confidential and that restricting publication would protect people’s privacy and good name and support its work. The newspaper disputed the Tribunal’s power to impose that restriction and relied on freedom of expression and the public interest in reporting.
The proceedings followed publication of articles in October 2004, including one containing extracts from a statement by a person who had given evidence to the Tribunal. The source judgment records that the Tribunal had directed that three people named in that statement be referred to as A, B and C in public. The journalist did not disclose his sources when asked by the Tribunal.
The High Court dismissed the Tribunal’s application in October 2005. The Tribunal appealed. In a judgment delivered on 29 March 2007, Mr Justice Fennelly agreed with the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the proposed injunction would amount to prior restraint on publication and require close scrutiny. It found that the Tribunal had not established a legal power to designate all material in its hearing briefs as confidential. The confidentiality notice accompanying the documents was imposed unilaterally, and the Court said the Tribunal could not create a power that the law had not given it.
The Court also considered the scope of the proposed orders. They would have applied to unspecified material circulated in the future, potentially across the entire media. The Court found the wording vague and too broad, including because it could cover public documents and material that had not been provided in confidence. It concluded that neither the original nor the amended proposal was satisfactory and that no satisfactory form of order could be devised.
The ruling concerned the Tribunal’s bid for a general restraint on future publication. The Court dismissed that appeal; it did not make an order restraining the media from publishing the material.