Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB) (22 January 2016)

Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB) (22 January 2016)

The article, as published and read in England, bore the meaning that the claimant, as CEO of BESA, with other directors, failed incompetently in governance by allowing $5.7 billion in loans without proper procedures, and misappropriated millions of dollars for himself, his family, and companies under his control, with reasonable grounds to suspect he did so fraudulently. The correct translation of the headline was 'pillaging', implying illegality. However, the evidence did not establish that publication in England caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation in England, given the extremely limited publication and the claimant's limited reputation in the...

Citation
[2016] EWHC 66
Parties
Claimant: Alvaro Sobrinho; Defendant: Impresa Publishing SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Trial (meaning, Serious Harm, Abuse of Process)
Outcome
Claim dismissed as an abuse of process; no serious harm established in England and Wales.
Legal Topics
Libel, Jurisdiction, Serious Harm Requirement, Abuse of Process, Interpretation of Foreign Language Publications
Defamation Private International Law Civil Procedure Libel Jurisdiction Serious Harm Requirement Abuse of Process Interpretation of Foreign Language Publications

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alvaro Sobrinho

Claimant

Impresa Publishing SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Trial (meaning, Serious Harm, Abuse of Process)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the article?
  2. 2 Does the publication satisfy the 'serious harm' requirement under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013?
  3. 3 Should the action be dismissed as an abuse of process (Jameel jurisdiction)?

Ratio Decidendi

The article, as published and read in England, bore the meaning that the claimant, as CEO of BESA, with other directors, failed incompetently in governance by allowing $5.7 billion in loans without proper procedures, and misappropriated millions of dollars for himself, his family, and companies under his control, with reasonable grounds to suspect he did so fraudulently. The correct translation of the headline was 'pillaging', implying illegality. However, the evidence did not establish that publication in England caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation in England, given the extremely limited publication and the claimant's limited reputation in the...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as an abuse of process; no serious harm established in England and Wales.

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim granted (subject to costs)