Berezovsky v Russian Television & Radio Broadcasting Company & Anor [2008] EWHC 1918 (QB) (31 July 2008)

Berezovsky v Russian Television & Radio Broadcasting Company & Anor [2008] EWHC 1918 (QB) (31 July 2008)

The First Defendant failed to provide convincing evidence that the witness was state-protected or that defending the claim would breach Russian law; therefore, there is no reason to decline jurisdiction and the matter must proceed.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1918
Parties
Claimant: Boris Berezovsky; First Defendant: The Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company; Second Defendant: Vladimir Terluk
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Application by First Defendant to Decline Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed; court retains jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Libel, Jurisdiction, State Protection of Witnesses, Publication in England, Justiciability
Defamation Private International Law Libel Jurisdiction State Protection of Witnesses Publication in England Justiciability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boris Berezovsky

Claimant

The Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company

First Defendant

Vladimir Terluk

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application by First Defendant to Decline Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should decline jurisdiction over a libel claim on grounds of non-justiciability due to alleged Russian state witness protection laws
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant has established that it cannot have a fair trial due to inability to identify a protected witness

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant failed to provide convincing evidence that the witness was state-protected or that defending the claim would breach Russian law; therefore, there is no reason to decline jurisdiction and the matter must proceed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; court retains jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Matter to continue; no stay or refusal of jurisdiction granted.