Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd

Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd

The appeal is allowed to the extent that Mrs Baturina may proceed with her claim in respect of all four categories of readers, but she must amend her statement of case to identify specific readers in each category who, on reading the article or trailer, inferred the innuendo meaning alleged. The cross-appeal is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Elena Baturina; Respondent: Times Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Appeal From Preliminary Rulings on Strike Out/summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal both allowed in part
Legal Topics
Innuendo in Defamation, Abuse of Process, Pleading Requirements, Foreseeability in Libel, Publication and Republication, Human Rights Act Impact on Defamation
Defamation Media Law Innuendo in Defamation Abuse of Process Pleading Requirements Foreseeability in Libel Publication and Republication Human Rights Act Impact on Defamation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elena Baturina

Appellant

Times Newspapers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Appeal From Preliminary Rulings on Strike Out/summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim based on innuendo should be struck out if the defendant could not reasonably foresee the defamatory meaning
  2. 2 Whether the claim constitutes an abuse of process due to minimal or no reputational damage
  3. 3 Whether the claimant must plead specific readers who understood the innuendo meaning

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed to the extent that Mrs Baturina may proceed with her claim in respect of all four categories of readers, but she must amend her statement of case to identify specific readers in each category who, on reading the article or trailer, inferred the innuendo meaning alleged. The cross-appeal is allowed to the extent of requiring such identification.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal both allowed in part

Orders

  • Mrs Baturina permitted to proceed with her claim in respect of all four categories of readers, subject to amendment of her statement of case to identify specific readers who inferred the innuendo meaning.
  • TNL’s cross-appeal allowed to the extent of requiring such identification in the pleadings.