Terluk v Berezovsky

Terluk v Berezovsky

The defendant's words in the broadcast were defamatory of the claimant, he was liable for republication in the UK as he knew the interview would be broadcast, the fresh evidence from Mr Lugovoy was not credible or unavailable with reasonable diligence, the defence of justification was properly rejected, privilege did not apply, and the damages awarded were not excessive.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Vladimir Terluk; Respondent/claimant: Boris Berezovsky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation/libel) / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Trial Without Jury
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused on remaining grounds.
Legal Topics
Libel, Damages, Justification Defence, Privilege, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Republication Liability
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Damages Justification Defence Privilege Admission of Fresh Evidence +1 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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vladimir Terluk

Appellant/defendant

Boris Berezovsky

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation/libel) / Appeal From High Court Judgment After Trial Without Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of were defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was liable for republication of the interview in the UK
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence (statements of Mr Lugovoy) should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's words in the broadcast were defamatory of the claimant, he was liable for republication in the UK as he knew the interview would be broadcast, the fresh evidence from Mr Lugovoy was not credible or unavailable with reasonable diligence, the defence of justification was properly rejected, privilege did not apply, and the damages awarded were not excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused on remaining grounds.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant upheld.
  • Damages of £150,000 to stand against the defendant.