Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 1805 |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: A2/2001/1058, 1163 & 1165 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 05 December 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 1805
The Master Of The Rolls
Lord Justice Simon Brown And
Lord Justice Tuckey
Case Nos: A2/2001/1058, 1163 & 1165
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Mr Justice Gray)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Desmond Browne QC & Mr Hugh Tomlinson (instructed by Olswang) for the Respondent
Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Mr Richard Spearman QC, Mr Richard Parkes & Mr Brian Kennelly (instructed by Reynolds Porter and Chamberlain) for the Appellants
This is the judgment of the Court to which all members have contributed.
There are before us a number of inter-related appeals arising out of two consolidated libel actions brought by Dr Loutchansky (the respondent) against the publisher and editor of The Times and two of its journalists (the appellants). The first action was brought on 6 December 1999 in respect of two articles published in The Times respectively on 8 September 1999 (the first article) and 14 October 1999 (the second article); the second action was brought on 6 December 2000 in respect of the continued internet publication of the same two articles on The Times website after 21 February 2000.
The appeals raise interesting and important questions variously as to the correct approach to qualified privilege following the House of Lords' decision in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited [2001] 2 AC 127, the proper construction of s4A of the Limitation Act 1980 in the context of internet publication, the scope of general damages for defamation under Russian law, and the availability of the summary disposal procedure under s.8 of the Defamation Act 1996 once judgment has been entered, an issue of jurisdiction.
Before attempting further to identify and address the particular points arising, it is necessary to indicate something of the facts of the case although, for reasons which will become clear, we can do so comparatively briefly; their fuller exposition can be found in Gray J's judgment below in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited (No. 4) [2001] EMLR 898, and in this court's judgment in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Limited [2001] 3 WLR 404 (the appeal which decided, subject to further appeal to the House of Lords, that a publisher claiming qualified privilege cannot pray in aid facts unknown to him at the time of publication).
The facts
The respondent is an international businessman of Russian and Israeli dual nationality. He was born in Tashkent and subsequently based in Latvia. Prior to December 1994 he was a regular visitor to England with numerous personal business contacts here. In that month, however, the Home Secretary personally directed his exclusion from the United Kingdom on the ground that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good. That direction has been under challenge ever since and an appeal is now pending before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
The first article was in these terms:
"Second Russian linked to money-laundering
British and American investigators are examining the role of an alleged second Russian mafia boss over possible involvement in money-laundering through the Bank of New York. Investigators are understood to be looking at links to Grigori Loutchansky, whose company, Nordex, has been described by the CIA as 'an organisation associated with Russian criminal activity'. Mr Loutchansky's name surfaced in earlier money-laundering investigations which may have links to the Bank of New York affair, in which billions of dollars of Russian money are alleged to have been laundered. The Russian-born businessman came to the attention of European and American investigators in the early Nineties. They suspected Nordex of using its former international base in Vienna as a front for a large-scale money-laundering operation. His name also figured in a British police report in 1995, known as Operation Ivan, which looked at the extent of the influence of the Russian mob in London. Mr Loutchansky has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing or links to criminal activity. Nordex, which has since moved out of Vienna, is also alleged to have been involved in the smuggling of nuclear weapons and by the mid-1990s reportedly controlled about 60 businesses in the former Soviet Union and another 40 companies in the West. The Times has learnt that these included between eight and ten offshore companies in British jurisdictions, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. They were administered through a chartered accountant in central London whose offices and homes were raided in 1996 by officers from the City of London Police. The companies were suspected of being used to help launder money from Russia, which was then channelled through European banks. No charges were ever filed against the accountant. At about the same time, a Yugoslav associate said to have been a front-man for Mr Loutchansky was stopped and questioned after arriving at a London airport. No charges were filed against him. The British investigation into Nordex is believed to have failed because of the difficulty of establishing that the money funnelled through offshore companies controlled by Nordex was linked to criminal activities. Mr Loutchansky is alleged to be a former business associate of Viktor Chernomyrdin, the former Russian Prime Minister, and in 1995 his name hit the headlines after it emerged that he had been photographed with President Clinton at a Democrat fund-raising event in 1993. He is also alleged to have had business dealings with Semyon Mogilevich, the Hungarian-based mafia figure at the centre of the Bank of New York investigation."
The words complained of in the second article read:
"Trader linked to mafia boss, wife claims.
A Russian businessman under investigation by Swiss authorities pursuing allegations of money-laundering was a friend of Grigori Loutchansky, a suspected mafia boss, the businessman's wife claims … If Mrs Chernoi's allegation about a connection between her husband and Mr Loutchansky is true, it will raise further questions about Mr Chernoi. In 1996 the CIA described Nordex, a company operated by Mr Loutchansky and alleged to have been used to launder money and smuggle nuclear weapons, as an 'organisation associated with Russian criminal activity'."
The appellants never disputed that both articles were defamatory of the respondent nor, indeed, was there any substantial dispute as to their meaning. Both articles alleged that the respondent was the boss of a major Russian criminal organisation and was involved in, amongst other things, money-laundering and the smuggling of nuclear weapons either personally or through Nordex, a company he owned and controlled. The first article stated more specifically that either personally or by means of companies which he owned or controlled he was involved in the criminal laundering of billions of dollars from Russia, alternatively, by his conduct, had given reasonable cause to suspect him or his companies of such involvement.
Each article foreseeably prompted republication of the libellous matter by the mass media in Russia in respect of which the respondent (in the first action) also claimed damages.
A further consequence of publication was that each article was posted on The Times website where it has since remained accessible and, as ultimately conceded, has from time to time been read. Despite the respondent's letter before action on 17 November 1999 and subsequent complaints about the continuing internet publication of the articles, no qualification was added to the website until 23 December 2000 when the first article was prefaced by the words:
"This article is subject to High Court libel litigation between Grigori Loutchansky and Times Newspapers. It should not be reproduced or relied on without reference to Times Newspapers Legal Department."
The sole defence pleaded to the first action was that of qualified privilege. The appellants aver that it is the duty of a free press to communicate to the public at large information regarding matters of public interest and that there is a corresponding interest on the part of members of the public in receiving such information. They contend that the subject-matter of the articles complained of was of the greatest general interest and importance to the public at large and to the readers of The Times in particular, that is to say the corruption and criminalisation of Russian society since the break-up of the USSR, the involvement of Russian organised criminal groups in money-laundering through western banks, the smuggling of nuclear weapons and the activities of such groups, including the acquisition of businesses in the West and in the UK in particular. They rely upon various information which they say they were entitled to treat as reliable, responsible and authoritative. That comprised media reports of the involvement of the Bank of New York in laundering the proceeds of criminal activity in Russia; media reports of suspicions about and investigations into serious crimes allegedly committed by the respondent, which have resulted in his exclusion from various jurisdictions including the UK; a statement by the then director of the CIA about the respondent's company, Nordex, being associated with Russian criminal activity; the respondent's conviction by a Latvian court in 1983 of offences of dishonesty; and various reports by intelligence services. In addition, the appellants rely on information provided to Mr Lister, the author of both articles, by three unidentified sources and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EC Karl Blythe v Gleaner Company Ltd
...jurisprudential creature from the traditional form of privilege from which it sprang’ (See per Lord Phillips M.R. in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd. Nos 2-5) [2001] EWCA Civ. 1805. [2002 GBQ 783). Indeed, as noted by Lord Carswell in Privy Council Appeal Seaga v Harper (UKPC 90 of 2006......
-
Seaga (Edward) v Harper (Leslie)
...observed: " Reynolds' case, however, applies only to media publications." 48See also Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 2-5) [2002] Q.B. 783, in which Lord Phillips, M.R. at page 806 agreed that: " Reynolds privilege (as we shall call it), although built upon an orthodox foundation,......
-
Grant et al. v. Torstar Corp. et al., (2009) 258 O.A.C. 285 (SCC)
...v. Mail & Guardian Ltd., [2004] ZASCA 67; 2004 (6) S.A. 329 (S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 83]. Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2001] EWCA Civ. 1805; [2002] 1 All E.R. 652 (C.A.), refd to. [para. London Artists Ltd. v. Littler, [1969] 2 All E.R. 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104]. Simps......
-
Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61
...(5) SA 401; Mthembi‑Mahanyele v. Mail & Guardian Ltd., [2004] ZASCA 67, 2004 (6) SA 329; Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2001] EWCA Civ 1805, [2002] 1 All E.R. 652; London Artists, Ltd. v. Littler, [1969] 2 All E.R. 193; Simpson v. Mair, 2004 BCSC 754, 31 B.C.L.R. (4th) 285; Mill......
-
Privilege, And This Time We Mean It
...McKeith v News Group Newspapers [2005] EMLR 780 11 Grobelaar v News Group Newspapers [2002] 1 WLR 3024; Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2002] QB 783, English v Hastie (31 January 2002, Gray J), Jameel v Times Newspapers [2006] UKHL 44, Henry v BBC [2005] EWHC 2587; Galloway v Telegraph [200......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 536 ............................................ 56, 57 Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2002] Q.B. 783 (C.A.) .................................. 85, 87, 172 Lubarevich v. Nurgitz, [1996] O.J. No. 1457 (Gen. Div.) .....................................
-
Internet Libel Actions Stayed as an Abuse of Process in the UK
...My attention was drawn in this context to the remarks of Lord Phillips MR (as he then was) in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd, [2002] QB 783, 817D at [72]: “. . . If the defendants were exposed to liability . . . they had only themselves to blame for persisting in retaining the ofending ......
-
Notice and Limitation Periods
...Foster Parents Assn., 2005 BCCA 398 at para. 15, where Hall J. states as follows: At para. 64 of [Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2002] Q.B. 783 (C.A.)], the Court of Appeal set forth the substance of the single publication rule: 86 ✴ Cyberlibel: Information Warfare in the 21st Centu......
-
Lange and Reynolds qualified privilege: Australian and English defamation law and practice.
...have any necessary or complete separation from traditional qualified privilege. (14) See Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [Nos 2-5] [2002] QB 783. Reynolds privilege attaches to publications to the world at large, rather than to occasions in the traditional sense: Kearns v General Council......