Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 81 (QB) (21 January 2015)

Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 81 (QB) (21 January 2015)

Directions were given for re-listing the defendant's application and setting a timetable for evidence and skeleton arguments. Permission to adduce expert evidence was not granted due to lack of compliance with CPR 35.4(2). Costs of the hearing and any costs caused by the vacation of the hearing date were ordered to be paid by the claimant, as his failures outweighed the defendant's unreasonable conduct.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 81
Parties
Claimant: Vladimir Sloutsker; Defendant: Olga Romanova
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Interlocutory Directions Hearing
Outcome
Directions hearing; no substantive determination of jurisdiction or service validity.
Legal Topics
Libel, Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Expert Evidence, Costs
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Service of Process Jurisdiction Expert Evidence Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vladimir Sloutsker

Claimant

Olga Romanova

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Interlocutory Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to try the 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

Directions were given for re-listing the defendant's application and setting a timetable for evidence and skeleton arguments. Permission to adduce expert evidence was not granted due to lack of compliance with CPR 35.4(2). Costs of the hearing and any costs caused by the vacation of the hearing date were ordered to be paid by the claimant, as his failures outweighed the defendant's unreasonable conduct.

Court Disposition

Directions hearing; no substantive determination of jurisdiction or service validity.

Orders

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