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 means that the Claimant, as CEO of BESA with other directors, failed incompetently in governance by allowing BESA to grant $5.7 billion in loans without proper compliance, record-keeping, or collateral, leaving the bank at risk and requiring a sovereign guarantee, and misappropriated many millions from the bank for himself, his family, and companies under his control, with reasonable grounds to suspect he did so fraudulently. The correct translation of 'saque' in the article context is 'pillaging', implying illegality. The Claimant is only entitled to claim for harm suffered in England and Wales. The issue of serious harm and abuse of process is to be determined on the...

Citation
[2016] EWHC 66 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Alvaro Sobrinho; Defendant: Impresa Publishing SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Preliminary Issues Trial (meaning, Serious Harm, Abuse of Process)
Outcome
Judgment on preliminary issues; meaning of article determined; further determination on serious harm and abuse of process required.
Legal Topics
Libel, Jurisdiction, Serious Harm, Abuse of Process, Defamation Act 2013, European Judgments Regulation
Defamation Private International Law Libel Jurisdiction Serious Harm Abuse of Process Defamation Act 2013 European Judgments Regulation

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

Parties

Alvaro Sobrinho

Claimant

Impresa Publishing SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / 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?

Ratio Decidendi

The article means that the Claimant, as CEO of BESA with other directors, failed incompetently in governance by allowing BESA to grant $5.7 billion in loans without proper compliance, record-keeping, or collateral, leaving the bank at risk and requiring a sovereign guarantee, and misappropriated many millions from the bank for himself, his family, and companies under his control, with reasonable grounds to suspect he did so fraudulently. The correct translation of 'saque' in the article context is 'pillaging', implying illegality. The Claimant is only entitled to claim for harm suffered in England and Wales. The issue of serious harm and abuse of process is to be determined on the...

Court Disposition

Judgment on preliminary issues; meaning of article determined; further determination on serious harm and abuse of process required.

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend Particulars of Claim to plead full meaning contended for by Claimant.
  • Claimant directed to produce draft re-amendment and submissions; Defendant to respond.