In Soo Kim v (1) Youg Geun Park (2) Soo Jung Kim (3) Boem Jae Cho (4) Hanintv.Com
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1781 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ09D05203 |
| Date | 08 July 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 1781 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ09D05203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Both Parties appeared in Person
Hearing dates: 30 June 2011
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
The Claimant appeals against an order of Master Kay made on 20 January 2011 by which he struck out this claim for libel. On that day he handed down his written reasons for his decision, following a hearing that had taken place on 18 November. He gave permission to appeal, explaining that his decision was based on a technicality. The reason he had given for striking out the action was that the Claimant had not identified any person who had accessed the websites on which the words complained of had been published.
THE PARTIES
The parties are all Koreans who live in England. Although they have had some legal assistance in this litigation, on the appeal the Claimant and the First Defendant appeared in person.
The Claimant graduated from Seoul National University in 1984 with a BSc Engineering, and from the London School of Economics in 1989 with a BSc Economics. Between 1990 and 1998 he taught mathematics in Seoul, amongst other activities. In 1998 he established three colleges in Seoul. In 2001 he came to the United Kingdom and established a college in New Malden, Surrey. He taught A—Level mathematics, physics and economics, amongst other subjects, to Korean students preparing to attend Universities in the UK. Together with his son he also established a restaurant and pub business. In 2007 he was declared bankrupt in the UK. He was discharged in 2008.
The First Defendant is the publisher of the website named as the Fourth Defendant and of a newspaper "The Korea Post". He has also been managing director of companies in the field of education, amongst other activities. There is a dispute between the Claimant and the first defendant as to whether the college with which the First Defendant is associated was in competition with the Claimant's business.
At the time the words complained of were first published the Second Defendant was the chief editor for the Fourth Defendant and the paper version of the Korea Post. The Third Defendant was appointed as chief editor of the Fourth Defendant's website in July 2008, according to the Defendant.
There is a large ex-patriate Korean community in the UK, the majority of whom reside in or around Kingston. The Fourth Defendant's website is one of the major publications serving that community. The Korea Post is distributed throughout UK Korean society.
Three articles are complained of. They are all in the Korean language. The first is one posted on 11 April 2007 headed "1,000,000,000 Korean Won Fraud Scandal on Student's Parents". (That sum is the equivalent of something over £500,000.) The second is an article posted on 16 May 2007 headed "Grief of the Gull Mother". The third is an article posted on 9 July 2007 headed "Arrest Warrants issued for Gull Mother Fraud Scandal Suspects". The phrase "Gull Mother" is the English Translation of the Korean phrase used to denote Korean ladies who leave Korea with their child or children to live in England, in order to enable the children to obtain an education in England, while their husbands remain in Korea until the family can be reunited.
The meanings which the Claimant attributes to each of the three articles complained of are very similar. They are that he preyed on the vulnerable parents of Korean students, and was a blackmailer, a criminal, a fraudster and a liar. In respect of the third article complained of the meaning he attributes to it is, in addition, that an arrest warrant had been issued against him.
The Defence of all four Defendants includes a denial of publication. That is the only defence which is material to the issue I have to decide. There is an issue as to whether the articles complained of refer to the claimant. There are, in addition, pleaded defences of qualified privilege (Reynolds Privilege) and justification or truth. The meaning the Defendants say is true is that the Claimant had abused the trust of vulnerable women by persuading them on deliberately false pretences to pay him large sums of money which he did not repay.
The plea of qualified privilege refers a press release issued in early April 2007 by the Korean Embassy in the UK. It is the Claimant's case that the press release did not name him, but that a couple (whom he identifies) claimed to identify him as the person referred to in the press release. It is the Claimant's case that this is a fabricated allegation.
In the Defence it is pleaded that on 4 April 2007 a broadcasting corporation in Korea (referred to as MBC) included in its 9 pm news bulletin a story to the effect that it was the Claimant who was said to have perpetrated a fraud on fifty Korean women known as "Gull Mothers".
The Claimant's case is that he brought proceedings for defamation in the Seoul District Court. By a judgment handed down on 5 June 2008 the Seoul Court found (in the translation provided by the Claimant):
"1. Confirmed fact: …
(b) The falsehood of the report: … It is clear that though the Claimant may have received expensive private lesson fees, there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved in the fraud against 50 gull mothers as suggested in the report, and that the report is false or unproved fact.
(c) Result: Therefore it is clear that [MBC] is responsible for libel and slander due to the report based on the fabricated or false information".
The Seoul court ordered MBC to broadcast a revised report in terms set out in the judgment (to be "read at the same speed as in all other of its news programs… after the first to o'clock News Desk' since this ruling, with the subtitle 'revised report' from beginning till end") and to pay damages in the sum of 5,000,000 Won (the equivalent of about £2,500).
CHRONOLOGY
The relevant chronology of events is as follows.
In April, May and July 2007 the articles complained of were first published.
On 5 June 2008 the Seoul court delivered judgment against MBC.
3 December 2008 is the date on which the Claimant claims to have had his attention drawn to the fact that the publications complained of existed.
On 7 or 8 January 2009 all the words complained of were removed from the Fourth Defendant's website.
On 25 November 2009 the claim form and Particulars of Claim were issued. It is drafted by the Claimant in person. The plea as to publication is similar in relation to each article:
"The persons to whom the … article was published (the Korean community in the UK) understood the article in Korean".
7 May 2010 the Defence was served. In addition to the pleas already mentioned, the Defendants relied on the one year period of limitation. It follows that the period of publication which the Claimant can rely on does not exceed the period 26 November 2008 to about 6 or 7 January 2009. As to publication the Defence included the following:
"16.4 The Claimant has failed to identify named individuals to whom the article was published or plead a platform of facts upon which an inference of publication to third parties could be based. In the premises the claim is defective in that it fails to establish a fundamental element of the cause of action, as per Al Amoudi v Brisard [2006] EWHC 1062 (QB)…"
On 21 June 2010 Master Kay gave directions. He ordered that (in the event that the case was not settled by 23 July) the parties should give standard disclosure on or before 10 September, and fixed a case management hearing for 28 October 2010.
On 23 August 2010 the solicitor then acting for the Defendants wrote to the Claimant asking him to identify the persons alleged by him to have read the words complained of. They threatened to apply to strike out the claim if he did not do so. The Defendant's solicitor also argued that the claim was an abuse of process on the basis that there was no real or substantial tort. The Claimant (who was not legally represented) replied with arguments of law, but did not identify any person who he said had read the words complained of. He also complained of a further publication dated 27 August 2010.
On 4 October the Master made an order (as varied on 15 October) that unless the Defendants complied with the order for disclosure by 25 October, they would be debarred from, defending the action and there would be judgment for the Claimant with damages to be assessed.
25 October 2010 the Reply was served. It included the following:
"13 Paragraph 16.4 of the Defence is denied. The posting is in a public domain, and any reader can go into it and can read freely without any restriction. There was no restriction to reading the articles, and any of the more than 50 million Korean language readers, including 50,000 Koreans in the UK, could have read the article".
28 October 2010 the Defendants issued an application notice asking for the claim to be struck out, or for summary judgment. In a witness statement in support the solicitor then acting for the Defendant referred to the fact that the Particulars of Claim do not identify any person alleged to have read the words complained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari
...a bearing on the question of construction: ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 725.” 36 In Kim v Park [2011] EWHC 1781 (QB), Tugendhat J held at [40]: “where the court holds that there is a defect in a pleading, it is normal for the court to refrain from striki......
-
Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd
...and should not be deployed unless its consequences can be justified”. 49 I also bear in mind that, as explained by Tugendhat J in Inn Soo Kim v. Youg Geun Park [2011] EWHC 1781 (QB) at [40]: “…where the court holds that there is a defect in a pleading, it is normal for the court to refrain......
-
Whessoe Oil and Gas Ltd and Another v William Jon Dale
... ... take into account the observations in Kim v Park [2011] EWHC 1781 (QB) of Mr Justice Tugendhat ... ...
-
Hockin and Others v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and another
...might be cured by amendment, the claim should not be struck out without first giving the party concerned an opportunity to amend: Soo Kim v Youg [2011] EWHC 1781 (QB). For the purposes of CPR 3.4(2)(b) the term "abuse of the court's process" was explained by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lor......