Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd [2010] EWHC 696 (QB) (31 March 2010)

Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd [2010] EWHC 696 (QB) (31 March 2010)

The claim is struck out in respect of publications in England and Wales and Internet publications due to lack of evidence of readers with relevant knowledge to support the innuendo. The claim survives in respect of hard copies published in Russia and properly pleaded republications in Russia, subject to proof of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 696 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Elena Baturina; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out in part; survives in part for trial on limited issues.
Legal Topics
Innuendo Meaning, Republication Liability, Double Actionability, Forum Conveniens, Abuse of Process
Defamation Media Law Private International Law Innuendo Meaning Republication Liability Double Actionability Forum Conveniens Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elena Baturina

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the articles are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning (natural, ordinary, or innuendo) against the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for lack of a real and substantial tort
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is liable for republications in Russia and elsewhere

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out in respect of publications in England and Wales and Internet publications due to lack of evidence of readers with relevant knowledge to support the innuendo. The claim survives in respect of hard copies published in Russia and properly pleaded republications in Russia, subject to proof of readers with relevant knowledge and double actionability. The Defendant is not liable for republications that go beyond the original allegations (novus actus interveniens).

Court Disposition

Claim struck out in part; survives in part for trial on limited issues.

Orders

  • Claim struck out in respect of publications in England and Wales and Internet publications.
  • Claim permitted to proceed in respect of hard copies published in Russia and properly pleaded republications in Russia, subject to amendment and proof of relevant knowledge and double actionability.