A High Court judge has reserved his decision over whether a newspaper should reveal where it got details of Sir Elton John's financial affairs.

Lawyers acting for Sir Elton have sought a court order to force the Express to reveal who gave one of its journalists the confidential document.

But Mr Justice Morland, sitting in London, said he intended to announce his ruling next Friday.

During the hearing the judge heard that the original draft of a barrister's written opinion, which had been "binned" at his chambers, found its way into the hands of journalist Rachel Baird.

After making notes, Miss Baird ripped up the document and gave it to a friend who disposed of it in a Soho dustbin.

"I don't know whether this is the normal method of disposal at this newspaper," said Sir Elton's counsel, Anthony Scrivener, QC.

When Miss Baird telephoned Sir Elton's lawyers for a comment, they immediately obtained an injunction banning publication.

Further leaks

Mr Scrivener said that, while there was no longer a danger of publication unless the information was made public, Sir Elton was anxious to ensure there were no further leaks.

They insisted that Express Newspapers, Miss Baird and the paper's editor Rosie Boycott disclose their source's identity.

The newspaper argued that it had a "public interest" defence under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act which recognise journalists' duty to protect sources.

Mr Scrivener told Mr Justice Morland that the documents were not in the public interest and were therefore bound by a lawyer-client confidentiality that could not be over-ridden by a journalist's duty to protect sources.

Special protection

Michael Beloff, for the newspaper, said that in this case, lawyer-client confidentiality was not entitled to any special protection.

He argued there was no risk of the material being published and the court should concentrate on the duty of confidence owed by journalists to their sources.

Mr Beloff added that the greater public interest was in ensuring that the public's right to receive information was not jeopardised by breaches of journalistic confidence.