Matrix Chambers has given an ‘unreserved apology’ to the Court of Appeal for revealing the result of a case online the day before judgment was handed down.

The renowned set published a press release based on a draft embargoed judgment on its website and its Twitter and LinkedIn profiles, which have 14,000 and 7,000 followers respectively.

The summary of the result of an appeal by the Welsh government in a judicial review over the provisions of the Internal Market Act 2020 remained online for five hours before it was taken down.

Helen Mountfield QC and Mark Greaves, both of Matrix and who represented the Counsel General for Wales, appeared before the court today to offer ‘an absolute, unreserved apology for the inadvertent early disclosure of the summary of the judgment’.

The court heard that the summary, which was drafted by Mountfield, was published last Tuesday morning by a member of Matrix’s marketing team who believed that the ruling was being handed down that day. Mountfield said the error was ‘corrected as quickly and completely as possible … a matter of minutes after it was brought to our attention’.

Matrix has also taken steps to ‘reconsider, refine and improve chambers’ procedures to minimise and, one hopes, eliminate’ any future breaches, Mountfield added.

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls, said the court could have brought proceedings for contempt of court but was content to accept the apology. However, he warned that ‘in future those who break embargoes can expect to find themselves the subject of contempt proceedings’.

Vos said he was ‘particularly concerned’ as the breach was not ‘an isolated incident’. ‘This has happened, I won’t say frequently because that would be exaggerating, but it has happened on quite a number of occasions since I became master of the rolls, which was not that long ago,’ he said.

In a short ruling, Vos said that ‘far stricter measures' need to be put in place over embargoed draft judgments. ‘Drafting press releases to publicise chambers is not a legitimate activity to undertake within the embargo,’ he added.

Vos also emphasised that the provisions of Practice Direction 40E are mandatory, adding: ‘It is the personal responsibility of counsel and solicitors instructed in a case in which an embargoed draft judgment is provided to ensure they are complied with.’

‘Proper precautions and double-checks need to be in place in barristers’ chambers and solicitors’ offices to ensure that errors come to attention before the embargo is breached,’ he concluded.

In a statement, Matrix said it had ‘mistakenly published’ the court’s decision, which was taken down once the error was noticed. It added it has ‘made immediate amendments to chambers’ internal processes to ensure that this error will not be repeated in the future’.