Berezovsky v Russian Television & Radio Broadcasting Company & Anor [2010] EWHC 476 (QB) (10 March 2010)

Berezovsky v Russian Television & Radio Broadcasting Company & Anor [2010] EWHC 476 (QB) (10 March 2010)

The court found that the First Defendant was responsible for the defamatory broadcast, which conveyed that the Claimant was party to a criminal conspiracy to fabricate evidence for asylum and, by implication, complicit in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. The Second Defendant was found to be 'Pyotr' and liable for the defamatory imputation of conspiracy and fabrication, but not for the murder allegation or threats, as these did not directly derive from his words. The Second Defendant failed to prove justification. Damages were assessed against both Defendants.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 476 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Boris Berezovsky; First Defendant: The Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company; Second Defendant: Vladimir Terluk
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / Judgment After Trial on Liability and Damages
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant against both Defendants; damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamation by Broadcast, Damages Assessment, Source Protection, Jurisdiction, Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment
Media Law Defamation Tort Libel Defamation by Broadcast Damages Assessment Source Protection Jurisdiction +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boris Berezovsky

Claimant

The Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Company

First Defendant

Vladimir Terluk

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / Judgment After Trial on Liability and Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broadcast by the First Defendant was defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant was 'Pyotr' and responsible for defamatory statements
  3. 3 Whether the defamatory meanings pleaded by the Claimant were established

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Defendant was responsible for the defamatory broadcast, which conveyed that the Claimant was party to a criminal conspiracy to fabricate evidence for asylum and, by implication, complicit in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. The Second Defendant was found to be 'Pyotr' and liable for the defamatory imputation of conspiracy and fabrication, but not for the murder allegation or threats, as these did not directly derive from his words. The Second Defendant failed to prove justification. Damages were assessed against both Defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant against both Defendants; damages awarded.

Orders

  • Damages assessed against both Defendants
  • First Defendant liable for all defamatory meanings pleaded