Debt Free Direct refused leave to judicially review ASA ruling

16 May 2007

An application by Debt Free Direct Ltd for permission to bring a judicial review against the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was dismissed in the High Court yesterday (Tuesday 15 May).  

The application followed an ASA investigation into a complaint by a member of the public about a Debt Free Direct TV ad for Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) that claimed: “It won’t cost you a penny.”  The ASA upheld the complaint.  

Last week, a request by Debt Free Direct to the ASA to delay publication of the adjudication pending a review was refused by the ASA’s Director General, Christopher Graham.  On Friday 11 May, Debt Free Direct obtained an ex-parte injunction against the ASA preventing publication of the adjudication.  Debt Free Direct applied for a further injunction and for permission to bring a judicial review against the adjudication and the Director General’s refusal to delay publication.  

In yesterday’s judgement, Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that it would require the most compelling reasons to prevent a public body such as the ASA from publishing its adjudications, which were in the public interest.  He said there were no such reasons here and that Debt Free Direct had not exhausted its available remedies before seeking judicial review - it had not requested an independent review of the ASA’s adjudication by Sir John Caines, the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications.  Mr Justice Sullivan stated that Debt Free Direct had been guilty of a serious and material non-disclosure of key correspondence and case law to the Court when it sought the original injunction.  

Commenting on the High Court ruling, ASA Director General, Christopher Graham, said: “Transparency is key to our effectiveness as a regulator and this judgement serves as a warning to others who would try and prevent publication of our rulings. In recent months we have investigated six complaints by Debt Free Direct about its competitors’ advertising.  Each of those investigations resulted in a published ‘upheld’ adjudication, yet Debt Free Direct sought to stifle publication of a ruling against its own ad.”  

The ASA was awarded costs on an indemnity basis.