Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Burgis & Anor (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 487 (QB) (02 March 2022)

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Burgis & Anor (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 487 (QB) (02 March 2022)

The book's passages complained of do not refer to or defame the Claimant or any ENRC corporation. The ordinary reasonable reader would not attribute the suspicious deaths or alleged poisoning to a corporate entity, but to individuals. The book portrays ENRC as a front for the Trio's activities, not as the organiser or perpetrator of the alleged acts. There is no suggestion of corporate sanction or implication in the wrongdoing. Therefore, the statements are not actionable in defamation against the Claimant.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 487 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited; First Defendant: Tom Burgis; Second Defendant: HarperCollins Publishers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issues Trial (reference, Meaning, Defamatory Tendency, Fact/opinion)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Reference in Defamation, Corporate Defamation, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Threshold of Seriousness, Defamation Act 2013 S.1, Business Reputation, Allegations Against Corporations
Defamation Media Law Reference in Defamation Corporate Defamation Natural and Ordinary Meaning Fact Vs Opinion Threshold of Seriousness Defamation Act 2013 S.1 +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 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited

Claimant

Tom Burgis

First Defendant

HarperCollins Publishers Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issues Trial (reference, Meaning, Defamatory Tendency, Fact/opinion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements in the book refer to the Claimant or any ENRC corporation
  2. 2 Whether the statements bear a defamatory meaning about the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the statements are statements of fact or opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The book's passages complained of do not refer to or defame the Claimant or any ENRC corporation. The ordinary reasonable reader would not attribute the suspicious deaths or alleged poisoning to a corporate entity, but to individuals. The book portrays ENRC as a front for the Trio's activities, not as the organiser or perpetrator of the alleged acts. There is no suggestion of corporate sanction or implication in the wrongdoing. Therefore, the statements are not actionable in defamation against the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendants
  • Claimant's claim dismissed