Private warnings between litigants about litigation costs and prospects of recovery are legitimate and do not constitute contempt. However, publishing scurrilous, abusive and inaccurate material about a litigant's conduct to third parties who can influence the litigant's commercial position (stockbrokers, analysts, auditors, bankers), and threatening to publish further defamatory material if litigation continues, constitutes improper pressure amounting to contempt of court, even where the publisher's subjective intent was not to interfere with the administration of justice. The question whether the tendency to interfere is measured against the particular litigant or a hypothetical litigant of ordinary fortitude remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.