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.
Parties
Vladimir Sloutsker
Claimant
Olga Romanova
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Libel / Interlocutory Directions Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to try the libel claim
- 2 Whether service of proceedings on the defendant in Russia was valid under the Hague Service Convention
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment