Walter Tzvi Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors.

Walter Tzvi Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors.

The Court of Appeal held that the claimant established a good arguable case that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum for the libel claim under s 9 Defamation Act 2013, given his domicile, reputation, and the locus of harm. The cross-appeal on the GDPR claim succeeded as the claimant had a real prospect of showing the Regulation applied. The malicious falsehood claim failed for lack of a real prospect of proving malice or sufficient pleading of damage.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Walter Tzvi Soriano; Defendant/appellant: Forensic News LLC; Defendant/appellant: Scott Stedman; Defendant/appellant: Eric Levai; Defendant/appellant: Jess Coleman; Defendant/appellant: Robert Denault
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on GDPR allowed; cross-appeal on malicious falsehood dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection (gdpr), Malicious Falsehood, Jurisdiction, Forum Conveniens
Defamation Data Protection Private Law Libel Misuse of Private Information Data Protection (gdpr) Malicious Falsehood Jurisdiction +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Tzvi Soriano

Claimant/respondent

Forensic News LLC

Defendant/appellant

Scott Stedman

Defendant/appellant

Eric Levai

Defendant/appellant

Jess Coleman

Defendant/appellant

Robert Denault

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum for the libel claim under s 9 Defamation Act 2013 against US-domiciled defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's data protection claim under the GDPR falls within the territorial scope of Article 3
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's malicious falsehood claim discloses a real prospect of success, particularly as to malice and damage

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the claimant established a good arguable case that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum for the libel claim under s 9 Defamation Act 2013, given his domicile, reputation, and the locus of harm. The cross-appeal on the GDPR claim succeeded as the claimant had a real prospect of showing the Regulation applied. The malicious falsehood claim failed for lack of a real prospect of proving malice or sufficient pleading of damage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on GDPR allowed; cross-appeal on malicious falsehood dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to serve the libel and limited misuse of private information claims on the US-domiciled defendants upheld.
  • Permission to serve the data protection (GDPR) claim allowed.