Berezovsky v The Russian Television & Radio Broadcasting Ltd & Anothers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EADY,Mr Justice Eady |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1733 (QB) |
| Date | 14 July 2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ07X01481 |
[2009] EWHC 1733 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EADY
Case No: HQ07X01481
Desmond Browne QC and Matthew Nicklin (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the Claimant
The Second Defendant appeared in person
The First Defendant took no part in the proceedings
Hearing date: 2 July 2009
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr Justice Eady :
On 2 July 2009, I heard the Second Defendant's application to set aside judgment, entered in default of acknowledgment of service on 4 December 2008. As the hearing concluded at 4.50 p.m., it became necessary to hand down my ruling on a later occasion.
The judgment was entered in default pursuant to CPR 12.3(1). The claim form and particulars of claim were deemed served on Mr Terluk, who resides in this country, on 4 June 2008 following service upon Ms Yvonne Stevens on 28 May. She is a solicitor at a Law Centre who was giving him some help at the time. I had directed on 20 May, in the light of the evidence before me, that this represented an appropriate mode of service.
There were thus 14 days from 4 June within which Mr Terluk should have filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence. He did neither.
The present application is made under CPR 13.3, whereby the court has a discretion to set aside judgment if the defendant shows that he has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or if it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why either the judgment should be set aside or the defendant should be allowed to defend. It is clear that one of the factors the court can take into account in deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion is the extent to which the applicant acted promptly.
The Claimant's case may be summarised as depending upon two propositions: first, it is said that the Second Defendant sat back and abstained from making any application until the last possible moment and, secondly, that he is unable to demonstrate that he has a real prospect of success.
Mr Berezovsky complains of three meanings in relation to the defamatory television programme broadcast in April 2007, each of which he attributes to words uttered by Mr Terluk on the programme. First, they are said to convey the meaning that Mr Berezovsky was a knowing party to a criminal conspiracy to avoid his extradition from the United Kingdom and to obtain political asylum here by procuring a false confession from Mr Terluk (first, by offering massive bribes and then, when he refused to comply, by drugging him). This was to the effect that there was a plot by the Russian authorities to poison Mr Berezovsky (to which he, Mr Terluk, had been a party) and that he would be in mortal danger if he returned to Russia. Secondly, it is said that the words convey the meaning that Mr Berezovsky was a party to the murder of his friend Mr Alexander Litvinenko in November 200Thirdly, it is also pleaded that the words meant that Mr Berezovsky had been a party to threats which made Mr Terluk fear for his life.
Ms Stevens, who was then (to a limited extent) representing the interests of Mr Terluk, told Ms Middleton of Carter-Ruck on 10 June 2008 that Mr Terluk “knew what was going on and didn't want to be contacted”. At that time, he claimed to be lying low for reasons of personal security. She wrote on 7 July to the effect that she had been unable to serve the papers at that time because the Second Defendant had “failed to make direct contact with us”. She added that she was no longer instructed and that Mr Terluk had a “new solicitor” called Abigail Evans of Wilson & Co.
Ms Evans wrote to Carter-Ruck on 14 July 2008 and confirmed that she was acting for Mr Terluk but that she was not instructed to act “in relation to any claim for damages” (which, of course, this libel action is). Documents have been obtained from Wilson & co, from which it emerges that Ms Evans was in communication with Mr Terluk and had sent him a letter from Carter-Ruck dated 10 July. On 15 July Ms Middleton spoke to Ms Evans, who indicated that she would tell Mr Terluk that his failure to respond to the claim form meant that there was a risk that the Claimant would enter judgment against him.
After judgment was entered on 4 December, the Claimant's solicitors sent a copy of the order to Ms Evans on 10 December, asking her to draw it to Mr Terluk's attention. There was indeed a letter of 11 December, as it has now emerged, which demonstrates that he was given a copy of Carter-Ruck's letter together with a copy of the order of 4 December. Formal service was effected on 17 February of this year on Ms Evans, pursuant to an order I made on 3 February of this year, and Ms Evans wrote to Mr Terluk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr Osman Inan Tanir v Mr Erol Tanir
...of… establishing that there was fraud". 45 Mr Weston makes reference to the decision of Eady J in the case of Berezovsky v Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company [2009] EWHC 1733 (QB). He says that this case is comparable to Berezovsky and provides " some other good reason" withi......
-
Jonathan Fox v Hannah Wiggins
...in default should be set aside. 111 First, this is a defamation and harassment claim. In Berezovsky v Russian Television and Radio [2009] EWHC 1733, [18], Eady J held in respect of CPR13.3(1)(b) that in a defamation claim involving serious allegations it was in the interests of both sides t......
-
Mid-East Sales Ltd v United Engineering and Trading Company (PVT) Ltd and Another
...6 months was unjustifiable delay, but in any event concluded that there was no real prospect of success. (vi) In Berezovsky v Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Co [2009] EWHC 1733 (QB) Eady J allowed an application where there was a 3 months delay but an arguable defence. (vii) The ......
-
Mohamed Ali Harrath v Stand for Peace Ltd and Another
...and proportionality. 19 The citations included originally Ghannouchi v Al Arabiya [2007] EWHC 2855 and Berezovsky v The Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company [2010] EWHC 476, in which I had awarded respectively £165,000 and £150,000. On reflection, however, Mr Dean withdrew thos......