Evangelos Marinakis v Irini Karipidis

Hearing date: 31 October 2024

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 10 January 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Richard Spearman KC

INTRODUCTION

This is the hearing of the applications of (a) the First and Second Defendants dated 26 July 2024 and (b) the Third and Fourth Defendants dated 10 July 2024, each seeking (i) to set aside the Order of Senior Master Cook dated 29 May 2024 whereby he granted the Claimant permission to serve the Claim Form on those Defendants out of the jurisdiction and (ii) an Order that the Claimant pay those Defendants' costs on the indemnity basis.

That Order was made on the application of the Claimant by notice dated 10 May 2024, without notice to the Defendants, and without a hearing. The Claimant's application was supported by the first witness statement of the Claimant's solicitor, Christopher Howard Scott, dated 10 May 2024. No Skeleton Argument was lodged in support of the Claimant's application. However, Mr Scott's witness statement included a number of submissions on the law (for example, paragraphs 28, 29 and 31 state: “Each of the four Defendants is domiciled out of the jurisdiction. Neither CPR Rules 6.32 nor 6.33 apply, so the Claimant requires permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction under CPR Rule 6.36 and 6.37 … the Claimant seeks to rely on both of the heads of jurisdiction or “gateways” identified at both Paragraphs 3.1(9) and (2) of Practice Direction 6B in order to serve his claim form upon the Defendants out of the jurisdiction … In the present case, the Claim falls within the scope of paragraph 3.1(9)(a) and (b) of Practice Direction 6B”; and paragraphs 46 and 47 state: “The jurisdiction of England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of this claim for the purposes of CPR Rule 6.37(3) as modified by Section 9(2) Defamation Act 2013 … the jurisdiction of England and Wales is clearly the most suitable place for the Claim to be brought.”)

No grounds were identified in the First and Second Defendants' application notice. However, their application was supported by, among others, the witness statement dated 26 July 2024 of Gary Summers, a barrister directly instructed by those Defendants, which states at paragraph 10: “The court is respectfully invited to set aside and/or discharge the Order, and then decline jurisdiction, on each or any of four bases: (a) The Claimant did not give full and frank disclosure in its (sic) application. (b) England and Wales is not clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring this action. (c) The claim against the First and/or Second Defendants lacks merit. (d) The claim against the First and/or Second Defendants is an abuse of process.” The First and Second Defendants' application was further supported by (i) a witness statement of the First Defendant (who gives her name therein as “Eirini Karypidou”) dated 16 August 2024 and (ii) a witness statement also dated 16 August 2024 of an individual described as “Investigator A”, who gives their address as “c/o” the chambers of Mr Summers, and who states at paragraph 1 of that witness statement “I am a professional investigator … Due to the sensitivities of this matter, I have not identified myself at this stage (as my work is still ongoing) …”. The First Defendant states at paragraph 1 of her witness statement that it is “made on behalf of myself alone”; and at paragraph 3 she lists every company of which, on her case, she is a director or in which she has a shareholding. The Second Defendant is not on that list.

The grounds identified in the Third and Fourth Defendants' application notice were, in summary, (i) that the Claimant did not give full and frank disclosure of the merits of his claim when making his application to Senior Master Cook and (ii) that the claims against each of those Defendants were “insufficiently strong to merit the exercise of [the] jurisdiction [to try the claims against the Third and Fourth Defendants]”. That application was supported by the witness statement of the Third Defendant dated 10 July 2024, in which he describes himself as the “founder and owner of the Fourth Defendant”, and which summarises the grounds of the application in paragraph 5 as follows:

“I believe, for the reasons set out below, that the Claimant did not provide the Court with the information which I am advised he was obliged to provide in his application for permission. I also believe that the claims against me and the Fourth Defendant are so weak that even though I accept that the Court has jurisdiction over those claims as pleaded, it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction. Whether the Claimant's failure to provide the Court with all the information he was obliged to provide was linked to a realisation of the weakness of the claims against me and the Fourth Defendant I am unable to say, but I do believe that that failure had the effect of concealing that weakness from the Court.”

The Claimant served evidence in reply, all of which is dated 17 October 2024, comprising (i) a second witness statement of Mr Scott, (ii) a witness statement of the Claimant, (iii) a witness statement of Ioannis Vrentzos, and (iv) a witness statement of Yiannis Kourtakis. This was followed by a second witness statement of Mr Summers dated 28 October 2024, served on behalf of the First Defendant, which attacked the credibility of Mr Kourtakis on the basis that he is a “professional slanderer who has been convicted of slander in Greece on several occasions”, and, further, complained that he had not mentioned that he was a defendant to a claim for criminal libel that had been brought by the First Defendant and her brother in Greece.

Mr Matthew Hodson appeared for the First and Second Defendants, Mr Ali Reza Sinai for the Third and Fourth Defendants, and Mr David Sherborne for the Claimant. I am grateful to all of them for their clear and helpful written and oral submissions.

THE PARTIES

According to paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant is a Greek national, and a businessman who has been well-known since 2017 for his involvement in and ultimate beneficial ownership of Nottingham Forest Football Club (“NFFC”), which is currently playing in the English Premier League. Not only is the Claimant, through his companies, the majority owner and chairman of NFFC, he also “attends games and other events as a prominent public figurehead for the club”. In addition, the Claimant has longstanding business relationships in London, having founded Curzon Maritime Limited, a ship-broking company, in 1991 in England and Wales, and having lived in London for many years thereafter. He maintains extensive commercial interests in England and London through the Capital Group of shipping businesses, whose brokering, insurance and legal services “all have a keen focus on London”. His personal interests in London include “longstanding personal and social connections”, and he is a member of a number of clubs (namely Mossimann's, Oswald's, 5 Hertford Street and The Arts Club).

According to paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has a number of other international business interests, including in the world of shipping, media and sports. Among other things, the Claimant is the majority shareholder in Olympiacos FC, a football club that competes in the Super League Greece.

Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim pleads that the First Defendant is (i) resident in Greece, (ii) the President and Managing Director of the Second Defendant, (iii) the chairperson of Aris Thessaloniki FC, a football club that also competes in the Super League Greece, and (iv) the chairperson of the Hellenic Trade Council, HETCO, an international non-governmental organisation based in Athens, Greece. According to the First Defendant, however, she is not a director of the Second Defendant (see [3] above).

Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim further pleads that the Second Defendant (i) is a limited company incorporated in Cyprus whose sole shareholder is the First Defendant's husband, Mr Dimitris Messinezis, and (ii) operates in numerous international industries such as trade, agri-foods, logistics, real estate, tourism, sports (including its ownership of Aris Thessaloniki FC), and green technologies. The Second Defendant's case is that she has never been married to Mr Messinezis, although she accepts that he is or was her partner.

Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim pleads that the Third Defendant (i) is resident in Israel, (ii) is a political consultant, and a former chief of staff to the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and (iii) is the founder and chief executive officer of the Fourth Defendant, which is also based in Israel and operates as a consultancy, advising on and delivering political advocacy strategies internationally.

THE CLAIM

Paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim states that the Claimant's claims against the Defendants are for (1) libel and (2) unlawful means conspiracy, and arise out of a “smear campaign” waged against the Claimant from 8 November 2023 until at least 23 March 2024 (“the Campaign”). It...