Stanko Subotic v Ratko Knezevic
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Dingemans |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 3011 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11D03680 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 14 October 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 3011 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Dingemans
Case No: HQ11D03680
Jacob Dean (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the Claimant
David Price QC (of David Price Solicitors & Advocates) for the Defendant
Approved Judgment
Hearing dates: 1 and 2 October 2013
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.
Introduction
These applications raise issues whether: (a) there should be an adjournment of 4 weeks to enable the Claimant's new legal representatives to have more time to advise the Claimant, to prepare for the hearing, and to consider further re-re-amendments to the Particulars of Claim; (b) the Claimant should be permitted to re-re-amend the Particulars of Claim in the form of the draft prepared by his former legal representatives, as further amended during the hearing; and (c) the claim should be dismissed as a Jameel abuse of process.
The Claimant is a Serbian national and the Defendant is a Montenegrin national. The Claimant currently lives in Geneva, Switzerland. The Defendant currently lives in Zagreb, Croatia. Both Claimant and Defendant consider that each other has been responsible for very serious criminal wrongdoing in the Balkans, and in the course of the hearing I was taken to documents by each side showing that both Claimant and Defendant have accused each other of very serious criminal wrongdoing. Both Claimant and Defendant deny any wrongdoing at all.
The Claimant has sued the Defendant for damages for libel in respect of publications in certain Balkan language newspapers said to have a hard copy circulation in England and Wales, and in respect of internet publication of those and similar articles in England and Wales.
On the first day of the hearing, after hearing argument I refused the Claimant's application to adjourn for reasons shortly explained at the hearing, and which are more fully addressed in this judgment.
After the hearing both Mr Dean, on behalf of the Claimant, and Mr Price QC, on behalf of the Defendant, each put in a further short Note dealing with an issue of law which had been raised by the application to re-amend, whether a plea of justification was maintained, and a further amendment to the draft re-re-amendment. I am very grateful to both Mr Dean and Mr Price for their helpful submissions and Notes.
Some background
I have set out relevant background facts below which I have taken from the witness statements and from information set out in the pleadings and draft amended pleadings. I am not in a position to make, and am not making, findings of fact on these background matters, but it is necessary to set out the background matters so that the issues raised by the claim and applications can be put into the context of what the Claimant and Defendant each allege about relevant matters.
The Claimant, Mr Subotic, is apparently known to everyone as "Cane". Mr Subotic is a Serbian national who left Serbia to live in France when he was 21. He is fluent in Serbian and French. He returned to Serbia in the late 1980's where he became a successful businessman, and entered the cigarette trade in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, pursuant to Government authority. His cigarette business expanded and he became the largest tobacco distributor in the Balkans.
Mr Subotic became a friend and supporter of Zoran Djindjic, who was then an opposition leader in Serbia, at a time when Slobodan Milosevic was President. In 1997 Mr Subotic moved back to France, and then Switzerland because of his fears for his safety. Mr Subotic also became friends and a supporter of Milo Djukanovic, then Prime Minister of Montenegro.
After the removal of Mr Milosevic, Mr Djindjic was elected Prime Minister. Mr Subotic began investing in Serbia. Mr Djindjic was opposed in Serbia, and Mr Subotic claims that Mr Djindjic became the victim of a malicious press campaign by persons opposed to reforms supported by Mr Djindjic which would prevent corruption. Mr Subotic says that because he was associated with Mr Djindjic, Mr Subotic became the subject of a media campaign from 2001 which was highly negative and damaging to his professional and personal reputation. Mr Djindjic was assassinated on 12 March 2003.
Mr Subotic says that in the media campaign against him he was accused, among other matters, of murder, drug smuggling, witness intimidation, fraud, organised crime and concealing his identity by plastic surgery. Mr Subotic says that all of these allegations are false and have caused him financial and personal harm. Mr Subotic says that one of the prime movers of the campaign against him is the Defendant, Ratko Knezevic.
Mr Subotic says that in 2001 Mr Knezevic had contacted Mr Subotic and demanded payment of a substantial sum of money without any justification. Mr Subotic had refused to make the payment, and the media campaign against Mr Subotic had begun. Mr Subotic had complained to the Serbian authorities about Mr Knezevic's alleged blackmail, and an arrest warrant had been issued against Mr Knezevic. After the assassination of Mr Djindjic the criminal proceedings in Serbia had not been pursued and the claim had been closed after the expiry of the relevant limitation period. Mr Subotic said that another witness to the alleged blackmail had also been murdered, but that no one had been brought to justice for that complaint.
In 2007 an Interpol "Red Notice" for fraud was issued against Mr Subotic at the request of the Serbian Government. Mr Subotic says that the Serbian Government is pursuing a malicious campaign against him. The Red Notice was removed on 5 June 2012. However a second Interpol Red Notice was issued at the request of the Serbian Government. This originally referred to fraud, but has been amended to allege "continuing criminal offence of abuse of official authority". It is said that the European Parliament has called on Serbia to amend its Criminal Code to remove this offence. Mr Subotic says that France and Switzerland have made it plain that they will not respond to the Red Notices, but the Red Notices have caused him considerable inconvenience.
On 28 October 2011, following a trial at which he was represented but did not appear, Mr Subotic was convicted by the High Court of Belgrade of offences related to organised crime, including the smuggling of and illegal sale of cigarettes. Mr Subotic appealed against this conviction, and his appeal was successful, and a retrial was ordered. It appears from the submissions before me that the second Red Notice has now also been rescinded and a retrial is currently taking place.
It also appears that there were criminal proceedings against Mr Subotic in Italy in relation to the unlawful transportation of currency between Montenegro and Cyprus, but these proceedings terminated without any finding against Mr Subotic.
Mr Subotic claims that Mr Knezevic invited the Swiss authorities to prosecute Mr Subotic, but the Swiss authorities found no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing, and have declined to prosecute him. Mr Subotic claims, and Mr Knezevic also relies on the fact, that Mr Subotic's reputation has been ruined by an extended media campaign over the course of several years.
Mr Subotic started proceedings in Switzerland against Mr Knezevic on 19 March 2010 in relation to the damage to his reputation. The letter to the Principal State Prosecutor made it plain that Mr Subotic was seeking redress, and principally criminal redress, for the whole of the campaign which he says had been waged against him. He named a number of specific persons to be investigated including Mr Knezevic. I have been told that these proceedings are "pending", but that Mr Knezevic has not been served and has no information about their progress. Mr Subotic did not provide any further information.
Mr Knezevic was alleged by Mr Subotic to be domiciled and resident in England and Wales in London at the time of the commencement of these proceedings. Mr Knezevic had been Chief of a former Montenegrin trade mission to Washington DC. He accepted that he was the source of some of the information published in Nacional, a Croatian weekly magazine. It appears that in 2006 Mr Knezevic completed a Masters at the London Business School, and in 2009 he had given his address as in London for the purposes of lobbying registration under the US Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
In July 2011 Mr Knezevic had responded to a letter from Geneva attorneys sent to his London address to complain that attorneys acting for Mr Subotic had managed to find the private address of his wife and children in London. It is right to record that Mr Knezevic did say that he was looking forward to seeing Mr Subotic at the London Court, but Mr Price, on behalf of Mr Knezevic, has made the point that Mr Knezevic wrote that email at a time before he knew about the cost of libel proceedings in England and Wales, and before the procedural delays in dealing with this case had occurred.
It now appears to be common ground that Mr Knezevic is living in Zagreb, Croatia. A letter of instruction dated 21 December 2012 from the Claimant's former legal representatives to Paul Austin states that Mr Knezevic is "now believed to be domiciled in Croatia". Mr Knezevic denies that he is the prime mover behind defamatory allegations against Mr Subotic, noting that he had been required to give evidence in judicial proceedings in Croatia and Italy against Mr Subotic.
Mr Knezevic has also referred to articles in July 2013 published in Pobjeda, said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talib Hussain v Sabir Hussain
...convenient summary of those principles was set out by Dingemans J on 14 October 2013 in his judgment in the case of Subotic v Knezevic [2013]EWHC 3011 (QB). I shall now read in paragraphs 55–63 of his judgment, which sum up the law relevant to this jurisdiction: "55. It is established that ......
-
Sang Youl Kim v Sungmo Lee
...quite frequently in libel actions. Recent examples referred to by the parties on this application include Subotic v Knezevic [2013] EWHC 3011 (QB) and Karpov v Browder [2013] EWHC 3071 (QB), [2014] EMLR 8. The jurisdiction is however exceptional; the assessment of whether a real and subs......
-
Tariq Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc & Board of Directors and Another
...quite frequently in libel actions. Recent examples referred to by the parties on this application include Subotic v Knezevic [2013] EWHC 3011 (QB) and Karpov v Browder [2014] EMLR 199. The jurisdiction is however exceptional; the assessment of whether a real and substantial tort has been co......
-
Bruno Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
...of the publication complained of. Mr Price refers to Karpov v Browder [2013] EWHC 3071 (QB), [2014] EMLR 8 and Subotic v Knezevic [2013] EWHC 3011 (QB) as cases where 'the existence of numerous other publications to similar effect was relevant as to whether the publications complained of c......