Al Sadik (aka Riad Tawfiq Mahmood Al Sadek aka Riad Tawfik Sadik) v Sadik [2019] EWHC 2717 (QB) (16 October 2019)
The Defendant failed to show that the Claimant had no realistic prospect of establishing that she was domiciled in the UK at the relevant date; the issue of domicile is fact-sensitive and must be determined at trial. The Defendant also failed to show that the Claimant had no realistic prospect of establishing serious harm to his reputation, given the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the publishees. The claim was not an abuse of process as it concerned serious allegations published to persons important to the Claimant.
- Citation
- [2019] EWHC 2717 (QB)
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Riad Tawfiq Al Sadik (aka Riad Tawfiq Mahmood Al Sadek aka Riad Tawfik Sadik); Defendant/applicant: Suhad Subhi Sadik
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Libel (defamation) / Application to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- Defendant's application to strike out and/or for summary judgment dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction Under Defamation Act 2013 S.9, Serious Harm Threshold Under Defamation Act 2013 S.1, Abuse of Process (jameel Jurisdiction), Summary Judgment, Domicile, Publication to Foreign Recipients
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Riad Tawfiq Al Sadik (aka Riad Tawfiq Mahmood Al Sadek aka Riad Tawfik Sadik)
Claimant/respondent
Suhad Subhi Sadik
Defendant/applicant
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Application to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction under s.9 Defamation Act 2013 given the Defendant's domicile
- 2 Whether the claim meets the 'serious harm' threshold under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
- 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi
The Defendant failed to show that the Claimant had no realistic prospect of establishing that she was domiciled in the UK at the relevant date; the issue of domicile is fact-sensitive and must be determined at trial. The Defendant also failed to show that the Claimant had no realistic prospect of establishing serious harm to his reputation, given the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the publishees. The claim was not an abuse of process as it concerned serious allegations published to persons important to the Claimant.
Court Disposition
Defendant's application to strike out and/or for summary judgment dismissed.
Orders
- The claim is to proceed to trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment