Walter Tzvi Soriano v Forensic News LLC
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Johnson |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 873 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2020-002450 |
| Date | 13 April 2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 873 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Johnson
Case No: QB-2020-002450
Greg Callus and Ben Hamer (instructed by Rechtschaffen Law Offices) for the Claimant
Alexandra Marzec (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) for the Sixth Defendant
Hearing date: 29 March 2021
Approved Judgment
The Claimant lives in London. He brings a claim against the Sixth Defendant in defamation and misuse of private information. The Sixth Defendant is a resident of the state of Washington in the United States of America (“the US”). The Claimant seeks permission to serve the claim form (and other documentation) on the Sixth Defendant out of the jurisdiction. The application was initially heard by Jay J on 14–15 December 2021: [2021] EWHC 56 (QB). It was granted (in part) in respect of the First to Fifth Defendants. Jay J was not satisfied that the Sixth Defendant had been properly served with notice of the hearing (see at [168]). He adjourned the application so far as it concerned the Sixth Defendant. He observed that the case against the Sixth Defendant fell into a slightly different category from that against the First to Fifth Defendants, thereby recognising that the outcome might be different.
There is a preliminary procedural issue as to whether the Sixth Defendant should be given relief from sanctions so as to be permitted to rely on late served evidence. The agreed substantive issues are whether the Claimant has established:
(1) a good arguable case for a “jurisdictional gateway” under CPR PD 6B for service out of the jurisdiction,
(2) a serious issue to be tried on the merits in respect of each of his claims,
(3) (a) England and Wales is, on the balance of probabilities, clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring the defamation claim against the Sixth Defendant, and
(b) there is a good arguable case that England and Wales is clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for the trial of the dispute and,
(c) in all the circumstances, the court ought to exercise its discretion to permit service of the proceedings out of the jurisdiction.
Issues (1), (2) and (3)(b) and (c) derive from Altimo Holdings and Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd [2011] UKPC 7 [2012] 1 WLR 1804 per Lord Collins JSC at [71]. Issue (3)(a) derives from section 9 Defamation Act 2013.
Summary of claim
Claim against the Sixth Defendant in defamation
The claim against the Sixth Defendant concerns two articles (referred to in the claim as “Publication 9” and “Publication 10”) posted by him on his open access internet blog. His blog “focusses on the perceived excesses of the Israeli national security state”. The evidence suggests that the majority of the readership of his blog is split between the US and Israel, and that a small proportion (around 5%) is in the United Kingdom (“UK”) (cf paragraph 40 below).
Publication 9 was posted on 30 January 2020. The headline is “Poor Walter Soriano Beset by ‘Dark, Hidden Forces’”. It addresses a newspaper article, described as “a puff piece”, in which the Claimant had accused “dark forces” of a conspiracy “to take him down.” It says that the Claimant “is not a good guy”, that he works “for corrupt oligarchs and prime ministers”, that he “sells weapons at steep profit to failed states” and that he “hires Israeli former military hackers to spy on his clients' enemies.” The blog was tagged with the words “bibi netanyahu, corruption, oligarchs, press freedom, russia, spying, water soriano.” Mr Terry's evidence (see paragraph 40 below) is that there have been 5,811 global unique pageviews of Publication 9, of which 2,741 were in the US and 792 were in the UK.
Publication 10 was posted on 14 February 2020. The headline is “Walter Soriano: Bibi's Bully and Fixer for Putin's Favourite Oligarch.” The latter was said to be Oleg Deripaska who had been placed under sanctions by the US. The blog post says that the Claimant was a “fixer” for Oleg Deripaska who was charged with serving “as Putin's money launderer”, that the arrangements included the transfer of billions of pounds to finance the Sochi Olympics, that the Claimant secured the security contract for Sochi Airport during the Olympics, that “there was a massive payoff to those close to Putin surrounding the Sochi Olympics” and that it had been suggested that the Claimant “may have had the Kremlin's blessing.” It also said that the Sixth Defendant's interest in the Claimant arose when the Claimant filed a lawsuit against him after he reported a “news segment which said that [the Claimant] had been hired to spy on Israeli police investigating Netanyahu for corruption… It appears that he's not only Deripaska's fixer, but Bibi's as well.” It said that the Claimant routinely lied. The blog post was tagged with the words “corruption, oligarchs, russia, walter soriano.” Mr Terry's evidence is that there have been 774 unique pageviews of Publication 10, of which 276 were in the US and 149 were in the UK.
The Claimant alleges that the natural and ordinary meanings of the words complained of in these publications are:
Publication 9: The Claimant is an individual who makes illegal arrangements for corrupt oligarchs; the Claimant hires hackers to illegally spy on his clients' enemies.
Publication 10: The Claimant makes illegal arrangements for Oleg Deripaska and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Claimant alleges that these publications have caused or are likely to cause serious harm to his reputation. He contends that they are “self-evidently serious, including grave criminality and attack his personal and professional integrity [and attack him] as a corrupt businessman”, thereby directly impacting on his reputation which is crucial to his business. He contends that it can be inferred that “the allegations complained of have inevitably spread amongst others.” As well as causing serious harm to his reputation, he says they have caused him distress and embarrassment. The Claimant's claim is limited to damage sustained in England and Wales.
Claim against Sixth Defendant for misuse of private information
The claim in misuse of private information concerns the publication by the Sixth Defendant of two photographs which were included in both Publication 9 and Publication 10. In one photograph the Claimant is shown with three other people at a table in what appears to be a restaurant. The faces of the other three people have been pixelated so as to be unrecognisable. The second photograph shows the Claimant with two other people. Again, the faces of the other two people have been pixelated. The setting is not immediately apparent, save that it is clearly indoors.
Both of these photographs were placed on the social media account of one of the Claimant's children. That social media account was publicly accessible. Any person could therefore access the photographs. The two photographs were copied from the social media account (or, as pleaded by the Claimant, “ripped from the social media accounts of a child in his family”) and published by the First Defendant on 14 July 2019. The copies that were published by the First Defendant were then published by the Sixth Defendant as part of Publication 9 and then Publication 10.
No evidence has been provided as to the circumstances in which either photograph was taken, other than what can be inferred from the photographs themselves and their subsequent appearance on a social media account maintained by one of the Claimant's children. It does not appear that either photograph was taken at long range without the Claimant's knowledge or consent. It appears that the pictures are posed. In the first photograph neither the Claimant nor the other three are eating (it appears that they have paused eating for the purpose of having the photograph taken), the Claimant's head is turned towards the camera, and it appears that the other three people are also turned towards the camera. In the second photograph the Claimant and the other two people are facing towards the camera in what appears to be a group pose.
The Claimant says that the publication of the photographs amounts to a misuse of private information which has caused him “considerable distress and alarm.”
The pleaded case also advances a claim in respect of a third photograph which had previously appeared in The Telegraph newspaper. In the course of his submissions, however, I understood Mr Callus to clarify that the claim against the Sixth Defendant for misuse of private information is limited to the two photographs described in paragraph 9 above.
Claim against First to Fifth Defendants
It is not suggested that there is any connection between the Sixth Defendant and the First to Fifth Defendants, save that they have all published material that is said to be defamatory of the Claimant.
The claim against the First to Fifth Defendants concerns 8 publications. Publication 1 was made on 5 June 2019. The claim in respect of that publication has been withdrawn by amendment. Publications 2–7 were made in July and August 2019. Publication 8 was made in June 2020. The Claimant alleges that the wording of each publication is defamatory of him in its natural and ordinary meaning. He says that Publication 2 bore the following (amongst other) defamatory meanings:
“The Claimant is guilty of receiving illegal kickbacks and other corrupt payments from the Russian state under the façade of security consultancy work for Sochi Airport during the Olympic Games held in 2014. The Claimant entered into a corrupt and secret business...
To continue reading
Request your trial