Subotic v Knezevic

Subotic v Knezevic

The action was dismissed as a Jameel abuse of process because there was no substantial publication or effect on the claimant’s reputation in England and Wales, and the proceedings served no legitimate purpose in this jurisdiction. The minimal evidence of publication and absence of loss or damage in England and Wales did not justify the continuation of the action or the proposed amendments.

Parties
Claimant: Stanko Subotic; Defendant: Ratko Knezevic
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Application to Adjourn, Application to Re Re Amend Particulars of Claim, and Application to Dismiss for Abuse of Process (jameel Application)
Outcome
Claim dismissed as an abuse of process (Jameel abuse); permission to re-re-amend Particulars of Claim refused; application to adjourn refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction, Amendment of Pleadings, Publication, Jameel Principle
Defamation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Jurisdiction Amendment of Pleadings Publication Jameel Principle

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanko Subotic

Claimant

Ratko Knezevic

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Application to Adjourn, Application to Re Re Amend Particulars of Claim, and Application to Dismiss for Abuse of Process (jameel Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be adjourned to allow new legal representatives to prepare and consider further amendments
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to re-re-amend the Particulars of Claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be dismissed as a Jameel abuse of process due to lack of substantial publication and effect in the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The action was dismissed as a Jameel abuse of process because there was no substantial publication or effect on the claimant’s reputation in England and Wales, and the proceedings served no legitimate purpose in this jurisdiction. The minimal evidence of publication and absence of loss or damage in England and Wales did not justify the continuation of the action or the proposed amendments.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as an abuse of process (Jameel abuse); permission to re-re-amend Particulars of Claim refused; application to adjourn refused.

Orders

  • Action dismissed as a Jameel abuse of process
  • Permission to re-re-amend Particulars of Claim refused