SVANTE KUMLIN & Anor v CAMILLA JONSSON & Ors

SVANTE KUMLIN & Anor v CAMILLA JONSSON & Ors

The English court has jurisdiction under Article 7(2) BRR for the First Claimant's claims in respect of Articles 2, 6, and 8, as they are defamatory at common law and there is a good arguable case of serious harm in England and Wales. The Second Claimant's claim fails for lack of jurisdiction because any financial loss was indirect, suffered abroad, and it cannot show a trading reputation or direct serious financial loss in England and Wales. Neither claimant has its centre of interests in England and Wales; the First Claimant's centre of interests remains Monaco. Therefore, only local damages for publication in England and Wales are recoverable, and no non-pecuniary relief with...

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
Civil (libel) / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge (cpr Part 11)
Outcome
Claim by First Claimant proceeds only for local damages for Articles 2, 6, and 8; claim by Second Claimant dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Libel, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Recast Regulation, Serious Harm Under Defamation Act 2013, Centre of Interests, Double Actionability, Reflective Loss
Defamation Private International Law Civil Procedure Libel Jurisdiction Under Brussels Recast Regulation Serious Harm Under Defamation Act 2013 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

Civil (libel) / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge (cpr Part 11)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels Recast Regulation for libel claims against Swedish defendants for online publications
  2. 2 Whether the claimants can show a good arguable case of serious harm under s 1 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether England and Wales is the centre of interests for the claimants, entitling them to global damages and non-pecuniary relief

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction under Article 7(2) BRR for the First Claimant's claims in respect of Articles 2, 6, and 8, as they are defamatory at common law and there is a good arguable case of serious harm in England and Wales. The Second Claimant's claim fails for lack of jurisdiction because any financial loss was indirect, suffered abroad, and it cannot show a trading reputation or direct serious financial loss in England and Wales. Neither claimant has its centre of interests in England and Wales; the First Claimant's centre of interests remains Monaco. Therefore, only local damages for publication in England and Wales are recoverable, and no non-pecuniary relief with...

Court Disposition

Claim by First Claimant proceeds only for local damages for Articles 2, 6, and 8; claim by Second Claimant dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Second Claimant's claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • First Claimant's claim limited to damages for publication in England and Wales; no global damages or non-pecuniary relief with effect outside England and Wales.