Al Saud & Anor v Forbes LLC & Ors

Al Saud & Anor v Forbes LLC & Ors

The words complained of in the first and fourth articles bear the meaning that there are strong grounds to suspect the First Claimant has intentionally used dishonest means to inflate the value of shares and his net worth; the second article bears the meaning that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the First Claimant terminated Ernst & Young as auditors due to their legitimate concerns; the third article bears the meaning that the First Claimant deliberately breached contractual obligations to Airbus and proved himself an unreliable and untrustworthy debtor. These meanings are defamatory of the First Claimant. The Second Claimant does not meet the threshold of seriousness for...

Parties
Claimant: HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Claimant: Kingdom Holding Company; Defendant: Forbes LLC; Defendant: Forbes Media LLC; Defendant: Kerry Dolan; Defendant: Francine McKenna
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Trial of Preliminary Issue (meaning of Words)
Outcome
Meanings found as set out; defamatory of First Claimant; not defamatory of Second Claimant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Threshold of Seriousness, Corporate Reputation
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Words Threshold of Seriousness Corporate Reputation

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Claimant

Kingdom Holding Company

Claimant

Forbes LLC

Defendant

Forbes Media LLC

Defendant

Kerry Dolan

Defendant

Francine McKenna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Trial of Preliminary Issue (meaning of Words)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the meaning of the words complained of in the publications?
  2. 2 Are the meanings defamatory of the claimants?
  3. 3 Is the threshold of seriousness met for the Second Claimant?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of in the first and fourth articles bear the meaning that there are strong grounds to suspect the First Claimant has intentionally used dishonest means to inflate the value of shares and his net worth; the second article bears the meaning that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the First Claimant terminated Ernst & Young as auditors due to their legitimate concerns; the third article bears the meaning that the First Claimant deliberately breached contractual obligations to Airbus and proved himself an unreliable and untrustworthy debtor. These meanings are defamatory of the First Claimant. The Second Claimant does not meet the threshold of seriousness for...

Court Disposition

Meanings found as set out; defamatory of First Claimant; not defamatory of Second Claimant.

Orders

  • Meanings of words complained of determined as per paragraphs 37, 43, and 10.
  • Second Claimant's claims dismissed for lack of seriousness.