Sloutsker v Romanova

Sloutsker v Romanova

The court set a timetable for the hearing of the defendant's application, required the claimant to pay the costs of the vacated hearing, and directed that any application for permission to adduce expert evidence must comply with procedural requirements, particularly the provision of a costs estimate.

Parties
Claimant: Vladimir Sloutsker; Defendant: Olga Romanova
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Libel / Interlocutory Directions Hearing
Outcome
Directions given; application re-listed; costs order against claimant
Legal Topics
Libel, Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Adjournment, Expert Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vladimir Sloutsker

Claimant

Olga Romanova

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Libel / Interlocutory Directions Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to try the libel claim
  2. 2 Whether service of proceedings on the defendant in Russia was valid under the Hague Service Convention
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to adduce expert evidence on Russian service requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The court set a timetable for the hearing of the defendant's application, required the claimant to pay the costs of the vacated hearing, and directed that any application for permission to adduce expert evidence must comply with procedural requirements, particularly the provision of a costs estimate.

Court Disposition

Directions given; application re-listed; costs order against claimant

Orders

  • Defendant’s application re-listed for hearing on 27 February 2015
  • Timetable set for service of evidence, hearing bundle, and skeleton arguments