Vladimir Sloutsker v Olga Romanova
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Warby |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 545 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12D04716 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 05 March 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 545 (QB)
Mr Justice Warby
Case No: HQ12D04716
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Adrienne Page QC (instructed by Hamlins LLP) for the Claimant
The Defendant, a litigant in person, did not attend
Hearing date: 27 February 2015
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.
The applications
In this action the claimant sues for libel in respect of the publication in this jurisdiction of allegations of fabricating evidence, conspiracy to murder, and the bribery and corruption of the prosecutor and judges in criminal proceedings. The allegations complained of concern the case of Alexei Kozlov, a former business associate of the claimant. The defendant is a journalist, and the wife of Alexei Kozlov. Like the claimant, the defendant is a Russian citizen. She is resident in Moscow. So the claimant had to obtain the court's permission to serve proceedings on her. In December 2012, he did. Since then, steps have been taken to serve the proceedings on the defendant in Moscow, but the validity of those steps is disputed.
The defendant now applies for:-
i) a declaration that this court has no jurisdiction to try the claim brought against her, alternatively, that it will not exercise any jurisdiction which it may have;
ii) an order setting aside the grant of permission to serve the proceedings on the defendant out of the jurisdiction;
iii) a declaration that (in any event) the claim form and particulars of claim have not been validly served; and/or
iv) in consequence of (i) and/or (ii) above, an order that the claim form and particulars of claim be set aside.
The claimant cross-applies for:-
i) a declaration that valid service of the claim form has been effected in accordance with Russian law; or, if service has not been so effected;
ii) an order under CPR 6.15(2) retrospectively validating as good service the steps already taken to bring the claim to the attention of the defendant; or
iii) permission under r 6.15(1) to serve the proceedings on the defendant at the address of her former solicitors, given as her address for service in a notice of change dated 12 January 2015, and an extension of time for service of the claim form to allow this.
The defendant's case has been set out in a witness statement she made on 5 September 2014 in support of her application, and a letter dated 13 January 2015 from iLaw Legal Services Limited ("iLaw"), solicitors who acted for her until that date. She is now unrepresented. She has not attended to present her application or to resist the claimant's applications. She remains in Moscow. The claimant is represented by Hamlins LLP and Adrienne Page QC, and has filed a substantial body of evidence.
The first question that arose was whether the hearing should proceed in the defendant's absence. I decided that it should, for reasons I shall explain after setting out the key stages in the litigation history. For reasons that will become clear, this summary will omit some facts that are dealt with only in the evidence served by the claimant in February 2015.
A short history of the proceedings
The claimant is a businessman. He is a Russian citizen, and was a Senator in the Senate of the Russian Federation from 2002 to 2010. In April 2011 he emigrated from Russia to Israel where he founded, with others, the Israeli Jewish Congress ("IJC"), of which he is the President. He is a former Chairman of the Russian Jewish Congress, and former Vice-Chairman of the European Jewish Congress. The defendant writes for the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, but also contributes to other publications.
The claimant complains that the defendant libelled him in four publications: a blog post written by her on the website of the Moscow-based radio station Echo Moscow ("the Blogpost"), two articles quoting her that appeared on the website of the Russian online newspaper gazeta.ru ("the Second and Third Articles"), and a programme broadcast on Radio Liberty ("the Programme"). The Blogpost and the Articles all first appeared on 15 November 2011. The Programme was first broadcast on 15 March 2012. The Blogpost, the Articles, and a transcript of the Programme are all said to have remained and to remain today available online. The claimant complains of republication on other websites and in print of the defamatory sting of the Blogpost and the Articles. All these publications were in the Russian language, though the Second and Third Articles were also published on the English language version of gazeta.ru.
The Particulars of Claim allege that these publications bore the following defamatory meanings:
i) The Blogpost: "that the Claimant had put a contract out for the murder of Alexei Kozlov, which was to be carried out whilst Mr Kozlov was being transferred to prison". This defamatory sting is said to have been republished on three Russian websites, newsru. com, og.ru, and NR2.ru on 15 and 16 November 2011, and on a fourth Russian website, kommersant.ru, and its print version on 1 December 2011.
ii) The Second Article: "that the Claimant had ordered the fabrication of evidence in the criminal prosecution of Alexei Kozlov and had put a contract out for the murder of Mr Kozlov, which was to be carried out whilst Mr Kozlov was being transferred to prison". This defamatory sting is said to have been foreseeably republished on newsru. com, og.ru and NR2.ru on 15 and 16 November 2011.
iii) The Third Article: "that the Claimant had threatened to kill Alexei Kozlov and had put a contract out for his murder, which was to be carried out whilst Mr Kozlov was being transferred to prison".
iv) The Programme: "that the Claimant had by means of bribes corrupted the head of the Presnensky Court, Evgeny Mikhailovich Naidenov, the public prosecutor and Judge hearing the appeal in Alexei Kozlov's case, Judge Vasyuchenko, and had issued instructions to them that Mr Kozlov's sentence of imprisonment was to be increased at his appeal hearing (whereas otherwise he would have been released) and was thereby guilty of an horrific perversion of the course of justice."
A pre-action protocol letter was written some three weeks after the fourth publication, on 13 April 2012. The defendant instructed iLaw who replied on 4 May 2012, making clear that they had no instructions to accept service. The claim form was issued on 9 November 2012. On 11 November an application was issued for permission to serve the proceedings outside the jurisdiction. It was supported by a witness statement of Mr Dawkins of the claimant's then solicitors, PSB Law LLP. The address for service given in the application was one in Zattonaya Street, Moscow.
On 12 December 2012 Master Yoxall granted the application, giving permission to serve the defendant at the Zattonaya Street address "or elsewhere in the Russian Federation." His order gave the defendant 21 days after service in which to admit the claim, or to file and serve a defence, or to file and serve an acknowledgment of service, in which case she would have a further 14 days to file and serve a defence.
On 11 January 2013 the claimant's solicitors wrote to iLaw, enclosing the Master's order and the application documents, and asking if they had instructions to accept service on behalf of the defendant. They were informed by letter dated a month later that iLaw had no such instructions, and that they expected to be instructed to challenge the jurisdiction "once you have served the English proceedings in Russia".
On 14 February 2013 the claim form, particulars of claim, and response pack were filed, with translations, at the Foreign Process Section of the Royal Courts of Justice. On 6 March 2013 the Senior Master made a formal written request to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 1965, Cmnd 3986 (1969) ("the Hague Service Convention"), for "prompt service" of those documents on the defendant. Whatever else may be said about service, it certainly was not prompt.
On 8 May 2013 the claimant's solicitor made a witness statement in support of an application to extend time for service until 14 February 2015. She explained that the Foreign Process Section had confirmed that the documents had been sent to the Russian Federation but had explained "that it could take up to 2 years for service to be effected there." The date chosen for the extension was therefore 2 years from the date on which the documents were first filed with the Foreign Process Section. The order extending time until 14 February 2015 was granted by Master Fontaine on 8 May 2013.
The defendant's witness statement records that the claim form and particulars of claim, in English and Russian, were received by her husband Alexei Kozlov, by recorded delivery at their address in Novospassky, Moscow, on 10 July 2014, having been sent by a Miss Krivosheeva, a private individual unknown to her. She asserts that this does not amount to valid service under Russian law and therefore does not amount to valid service under the Hague Service Convention. She states that the method of service in Russia under the Hague Service Convention is by summons to court, and that she was not summoned.
On 24 July 2014 an acknowledgment of service was filed by iLaw on behalf of the defendant indicating an intention to contest the court's jurisdiction. iLaw made clear in letters to the court and the claimant's solicitors that the acknowledgment had been filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muyang Matilda Epse Hills v Angie Bridget Fomukong Epse Tabe (Aka Esanza Mateke, Bridget Benjamin)
...the original publishees (“the grapevine effect”) ( Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283, 300 per Bingham LJ). In Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 545 (QB); [2015] 2 Costs LR 321, Warby J said at [69]: “… It has to be borne in mind that the assessment of whether there is a real and substantial to......
-
Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com (Defendant(s)
...application in the absence of the defendants. I accept Mr Wilson's submission that I should follow the approach I identified in Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 545 (QB) [22]–[23]: "Where a party fails to appear at the hearing of an application the court may proceed in their absence: CPR 23......
-
David Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd
...(‘the grapevine effect’) ( Slipper v British Broadcasting Corpn [1991] 1 QB 283, 300 per Bingham LJ). In Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 545 (QB); [2015] 2 Costs LR 321, Warby J said, at para 69: ‘It has to be borne in mind that the assessment of whether there is a real and substantial t......
-
Rached Ghannouchi v Middle East Online Ltd
... ... v Vines [21](c)(iv) above) being what Warby J had said in Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 545 ; [2015] 2 Costs LR 321 at paragraph ... ...
-
Serving Proceedings in Russia under the Hague Convention
...in the circumstances described in the Sloutsker case if an attempt is made to enforce the judgment in Russia. Sloutsker v Romanova – [2015] EWHC 545 (QB) Andrew HearnMatthew Magee function JDS_LoadEvent(func) { var ...
-
Instagram food fight: Court clarifies approach to social media defamation
...small-scale publication." "What matters is not the extent of publication, but to whom the words are published." Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 545 (QB) stated that it is often said that the graver the imputation, the more likely it is to spread and to cause serious The Court in Dhir refer......