John
Campbell SC KC

• Commercial Litigation
• Judicial Review
• Arbitration
• Civil Fraud
• Company and Partnership
• Privacy, Media and IP
• Regulatory
• Defamation
• Data Protection
• Procurement

Most recently in the UK, John has appeared in Consumer Credit cases. These include Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd and Anor at trial, in the Court of Appeal ([2013] EWCA Civ 1658 (16 December 2013); [2013] All ER (D) 152 (Dec)) and in the Supreme Court [2014] UKSC 61.

For the better part of 15 years, John was extensively briefed on behalf of South Africa’s biggest circulation newspaper, The Sunday Times, in both privacy and defamation cases. This included opposing, on public interest grounds, an attempt by a previous Minister of Health, controversial because of her approach to the treatment of AIDS, to suppress publication of her own hospital treatment;[1] opposing an order by a commission of inquiry that a journalist testify;[2] and successfully defended an action brought after allegations that a catering company had caused food poisoning at a public event.[3] Other important reported decisions include successfully acting for the largest theme park in Johannesburg against a television company that had broadcast a defamatory programme alleging that some of its rides were unsafe;[4] and acting for various media companies in defamation actions brought against them by the previous State President of South Africa (the matter was withdrawn before trial); and for the publisher of a biography of a prominent member of Parliament critical of the government’s then AIDS policy, for revealing the HIV status of three persons.[5] John has also written an article on the rules of pleading defamation in South Africa, in the South African Law Journal,[6] arguing for harmonisation with the UK and Australian rules; a comparative article on the new defence of responsible publication (arguing that it is really the reintroduction of fault as an element of the tort of defamation);[7] an analysis of what damages are designed to redress in defamation;[8] a short note arguing that damages for loss of profits ought not to be claimable in a defamation action;[9] and, finally, an article explaining the Roman Dutch common law action founded on human dignity.[10] He regularly advises clients on all aspects of defamation, privacy and data protection.

Currently, John appears for the Freedom of Expression Institute in South Africa (a prominent NGO that, amongst other things, litigates freedom of expression issues with a constitutional aspect) in a case (both the civil trial and the injunction) that raises the question, amongst other issues, as to how far a freelance journalist may be held responsible for publication of an article in the media.

John co-wrote (with four other authors) the leading academic work in South Africa on competition law[11] drawing heavily from comparative United States anti-trust law and European law to give flesh to the new South African statute.

In practice, he has been involved both in large mergers and, particularly, cartel cases, all involving the assessment and cross-examination of expert competition economic evidence. These include acting for South Africa’s Competition Commission in a case against the General Council of the Bar as to whether or not certain Bar Council rules were anti-competitive;[12] for a media company in opposing a merger, by way of two judicial reviews taken to the Competition Appeal Court;[13] acting for a vehicle tracking company in a successful appeal to the Competition Appeal Court which established that industry standards did not necessarily (and did not, in this case) constitute an anti-competitive practice;[14] successfully arguing, in the Supreme Court of Appeal, that litigation privilege had been waived;[15] and assisting in the eventual settlement of a cartel case by showing, in cross-examination, the existence of a further cartel in the industry concerned that had not been identified by the Competition Commission.

Over recent years, John has practised extensively over the full range of commercial law including contracts, waivers, estoppel, company law, cession and damages. Recent cases include successfully defending SAB in an arbitration under Uncitral Rules against a claim by a logistics service-provider; acting successfully for a UK asset management company in obtaining an injunction against former employees from filching its trade secrets;[16] and setting aside, on behalf of a UK-based commodities trading company, an injunction essentially freezing a consignment of cobalt[17] which required argument on both the English law of specific performance, as well as aspects of both Roman Dutch law and of international arbitration procedure.

Before coming to the Bar, John acted as instructing attorney (solicitor) in the famous trio of Traub cases that established the doctrine of legitimate expectation in South Africa five years before the advent of democracy and the Constitution.[18] Some years later, he wrote a substantial article illustrating how substantive legitimate expectations could be protected, and with reference to all comparative law in the Commonwealth.[19] It has been widely cited in articles, books and case law in both the UK and South Africa. This was followed by a short article focussing on a decision by the Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal as an illustration of the approach that he had argued for.[20] John also wrote a further article for the UK publication, Judicial Review, on the operation of the remedy of substitution in South Africa.[21] Other important cases in this field include a case reviewing a Cabinet Minister’s decision not to pay subsidies available for the production of a film,[22] reviews of various decisions, both procedural and substantive, of the Competition Appeal Court,[23] and, recently, a review of the award of a large tender by the South African Police Service.