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

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

Directions were given to re-list the defendant's application, set a timetable for evidence and submissions, and require any application for expert evidence to comply with procedural rules, with costs of the ineffective hearing awarded to the defendant due to the claimant's greater responsibility for the hearing being ineffective.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 81 (QB)
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 given; application re-listed; costs of hearing awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Adjournment of Hearing, Costs Orders
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Service of Process Jurisdiction Adjournment of Hearing Costs Orders

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 the hearing should be adjourned and directions given for further conduct of the application

Ratio Decidendi

Directions were given to re-list the defendant's application, set a timetable for evidence and submissions, and require any application for expert evidence to comply with procedural rules, with costs of the ineffective hearing awarded to the defendant due to the claimant's greater responsibility for the hearing being ineffective.

Court Disposition

Directions given; application re-listed; costs of hearing awarded to defendant.

Orders

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