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 'Pyotr' is a state-protected witness under Russian law or that disclosure would result in criminal liability, and did not identify a defence it would be prevented from advancing. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to decline jurisdiction and the matter should proceed.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1918 (QB)
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 (interlocutory)
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 (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should decline jurisdiction over a libel claim involving foreign parties and alleged state-protected witnesses
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant has established that it cannot have a fair trial due to Russian law restrictions on identifying a protected witness

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant failed to provide convincing evidence that 'Pyotr' is a state-protected witness under Russian law or that disclosure would result in criminal liability, and did not identify a defence it would be prevented from advancing. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to decline jurisdiction and the matter should proceed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; court retains jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue against the First Defendant.