Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors (Rev1) [2021] EWCA Civ 1952 (21 December 2021)

Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors (Rev1) [2021] EWCA Civ 1952 (21 December 2021)

Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 is a tailored modification of forum conveniens principles, not a stand-alone jurisdictional bar. The claimant must establish a good arguable case that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum, but the defendants bear an evidential burden to identify an alternative forum. The claimant's evidence was sufficient to show his reputation and harm were centred in England, and the defendants did not demonstrate California was a more appropriate forum. Permission to serve libel and limited misuse of private information claims was correctly granted.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1952
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
Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court Decision / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel Tourism, Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants, Section 9 Defamation Act 2013, Forum Conveniens, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Malicious Falsehood
Defamation Private International Law Media Law Libel Tourism Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants Section 9 Defamation Act 2013 Forum Conveniens Misuse of Private Information +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 22 Party arguments 2
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

Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court Decision / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English courts have jurisdiction to hear libel claims against US-domiciled defendants under s.9 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum for the libel action
  3. 3 Whether claimant can pursue claims in data protection and malicious falsehood

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 is a tailored modification of forum conveniens principles, not a stand-alone jurisdictional bar. The claimant must establish a good arguable case that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate forum, but the defendants bear an evidential burden to identify an alternative forum. The claimant's evidence was sufficient to show his reputation and harm were centred in England, and the defendants did not demonstrate California was a more appropriate forum. Permission to serve libel and limited misuse of private information claims was correctly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to serve libel and limited misuse of private information claims on US-domiciled defendants upheld.
  • Permission to serve claims in data protection and malicious falsehood refused.