SVANTE KUMLIN & Anor v CAMILLA JONSSON & Ors

SVANTE KUMLIN & Anor v CAMILLA JONSSON & Ors

The English court has jurisdiction over the First Claimant's claims in respect of Articles 2, 6, and 8 for local damages only, as he established a good arguable case of serious harm from publication in England and Wales, but failed to show England and Wales as his centre of interests. The Second Claimant's claim fails for lack of jurisdiction, causation, and trading reputation, as any financial loss was indirect and occurred abroad, barred by Marinari and reflective loss principles.

Parties
First Claimant: Svante Kumlin; Second Claimant: EEW Eco Energy World PLC; First Defendant: Camilla Jonsson; Second Defendant: Per Agerman; Third Defendant: Annelie Östlund; Fourth Defendant: Realtid Media AB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel / Jurisdiction Challenge Under CPR Part 11
Outcome
Claim by First Claimant proceeds for local damages only; claim by Second Claimant dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Libel, Jurisdiction, Serious Harm, Centre of Interests, Double Actionability, Reflective Loss
Defamation Private International Law Civil Procedure Libel Jurisdiction Serious Harm Centre of Interests Double Actionability +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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Svante Kumlin

First Claimant

EEW Eco Energy World PLC

Second Claimant

Camilla Jonsson

First Defendant

Per Agerman

Second Defendant

Annelie Östlund

Third Defendant

Realtid Media AB

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Jurisdiction Challenge Under CPR Part 11

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the libel claim under Article 7(2) Brussels Recast Regulation
  2. 2 Whether the claimants can establish serious harm under s 1 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether England and Wales is the centre of interests for global damages

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction over the First Claimant's claims in respect of Articles 2, 6, and 8 for local damages only, as he established a good arguable case of serious harm from publication in England and Wales, but failed to show England and Wales as his centre of interests. The Second Claimant's claim fails for lack of jurisdiction, causation, and trading reputation, as any financial loss was indirect and occurred abroad, barred by Marinari and reflective loss principles.

Court Disposition

Claim by First Claimant proceeds for local damages only; claim by Second Claimant dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Parties to draw up an order reflecting the judgment.
  • First Claimant's claim limited to damages arising from publication in England and Wales.