Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

Syndicate contentRSS

Mulcaire and confidentiality

What impact will the withdraw of litigation funding have?

Since the revelations in the New York Times revived the phone hacking scandal back in September 2010, one of the most puzzling aspects has been the "settlement" agreement that News International had entered into with Glenn Mulcaire. In particular, as was pointed out at Jack of Kent, a conventional settlement agreement made no sense if Mulcaire was not actually an employee to begin with.

Since then, it has become clear that the agreement had two key terms in addition to any cash payment for Mulcaire to compromise all and any legal claims against News International, if he ever had any such claims at all.

First, there was an obligation of confidentiality on Mulcaire. This is standard in such agreements, though in this case it was clearly convenient to News International. A cynic may even suggest that was the whole point.

Second, there appears to have been an indemnity for the payment of Mulcaire's legal fees for defences to civil claims. This may have been tied into a further right of News International to conduct his defence. This would have been sensible from a strategic point of view, as it appears News International was facing a number of actions as co-defendant with Mulcaire.

However, after pressure at yesterday's select committee hearing, it has been announced that this funding of legal costs has been withdrawn. Apart from the direct financial detriment this will have on Mulcaire, it is not clear what impact this will have on either the confidentiality provision or any right of News International to conduct his defence on his behalf. If the agreement is sophisticated and well-drafted, it may be that the indemnity can be dropped without any effect on whether other obligations can be enforced.

In any case, it would now seem that Mulcaire has no direct interest in co-ordinating any defence to the civil claims with News International. He may well feel at least morally released from any obligation of confidentiality. The withdraw of funding his defence may have a significant impact on the course of the outstanding civil claims. In this way, as in many others, the events of this week mean that News International cannot carry on as before.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman. He is the author of the Jack of Kent blog and can be followed on Twitter and on Facebook.

Tags: Glenn Mulcaire  Phone hacking scandal  News of the World

11 comments

fghjkl's picture

http://www。cc2biz。com

Eva's picture

PS: Today's ECHR decision re. "whistleblowing" "in public interest" vs. "legitimate aim of protecting business" http://t.co/icEQKGW (ECHR pdf) -might be of interest in context of validity of confidentiality agreements ...?

Casandra's picture

Am no British lawyer and not too familiar with the details, but whatever (commercially) protective confidentiality agreement or clause might have been signed / contracted during the time of Mulcaire’s work for now wouldn’t it be valid despite dismissal? http://www.homeimprovementhq.net/

Rich's picture

A deliberate personal repudiatory breach by the controlling mind of the company of a material term of the contract could give him some serious mileage in treating the whole agreement as terminated.

Could well have the choice of accepting their breach and being released of his obligations, or of suing for the money they won't pay him and recovering it as a debt.

Hard to say anything for sure without seeing it, of course.

sasasaaa's picture

+http://www.abcneed.com=
+http://www.abcneed.com=
+http://www.abcneed.com=
+http://www.abcneed.com=
+http://www.abcneed.com=
+http://www.abcneed.com=

Iain's picture

I am not a lawyer but if I understand correctly the agreement may have been drafted in such a way as to allow the funding of legal costs to be withdrawn while the confidentiality clause continues.

In that case, if confidentiality is breached, what could NI do? Sue for breach of contract presumably but what would be the loss they suffered, bearing in mind that the NoW has now ceased so it has no commercial value?

Ian McDougall's picture

I think we should get back to basics! Without wishing to sound unduly pompous, bear with me while I sound unduly pompous for a while! If a contract has, as its purpose, the furtherance of an illegal act or conspiracy to undertake an illegal act, it would be unenforceable (i.e. meaningless). So if the allegation is that the contract was made in order to obstruct Police investigations, or to conceal the commission of a crime, that's an end to the contract. And rightly so.

If, on the other hand, the contract has the purpose of preserving the confidentiality of details of legal commercial relations, then it is difficult to see what is wrong with it from a legal point of view. Or are we saying that whenever there is a storm in the press, individual privacy and confidentiality rights are to be disregarded? Isn't that the attitude that pervaded the press and is the whole cause of this storm in the first place?

Bill Kristol-Balls's picture

What power if any does Judge Leveson have force the break of any NI confidentiality agreements when the inquiry gets going?

Eva's picture

I agree with Ian McDougall. If employment or settlement agreements are on a "do ut des" basis one must wonder what was bought or settled? In case of the "rogue" detective/reporter version it's astonishing they didn't/couldn’t terminate whatever contract there was in place at the time immediately and without ongoing obligations (because of criminal activity for example). Am no British lawyer and not too familiar with the details, but whatever (commercially) protective confidentiality agreement or clause might have been signed / contracted during the time of Mulcaire’s work for NoW wouldn’t it be valid despite dismissal? All hypothetical, of course, and depending … an agreement to pay for phonehacking would be void anyway …

Paul's picture

I'm not a lawyer, but have signed a 'compromise agreement' as an employee. WAS Mulcaire an employee? Is this also a 'compromise agreement' to settle all future claims, and to prevent a tribunal claim? And as far as confidentiality goes, although this should apply to both sides, it strikes me that an ex-employee breach is pursuable, but an ex-employer breach is not pursuable, possibly mythical.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets