Wright v Ver [2019] EWHC 2094 (QB) (31 July 2019)

Wright v Ver [2019] EWHC 2094 (QB) (31 July 2019)

The claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring the defamation action, given the global nature of the publications, the predominance of publication and likely reputational harm in the US, and the lack of specific evidence of harm in England and Wales. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim under s.9 Defamation Act 2013.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2094 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Craig Wright; Defendant: Roger Ver
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Libel / Jurisdictional Challenge and Application to Strike Out
Outcome
Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Libel Tourism, Jurisdiction in Defamation, Section 9 Defamation Act 2013, Internet Publication, Harm to Reputation, Forum Non Conveniens
Defamation Private International Law Libel Tourism Jurisdiction in Defamation Section 9 Defamation Act 2013 Internet Publication Harm to Reputation Forum Non Conveniens

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 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Wright

Claimant

Roger Ver

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Jurisdictional Challenge and Application to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring a defamation action under s.9 Defamation Act 2013 against a non-domiciled defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claimant provided sufficient evidence of harm to reputation in England and Wales

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring the defamation action, given the global nature of the publications, the predominance of publication and likely reputational harm in the US, and the lack of specific evidence of harm in England and Wales. Therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim under s.9 Defamation Act 2013.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The action is struck out for lack of jurisdiction under s.9 Defamation Act 2013.
  • Set-aside application refused as academic and without merit.