Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd

Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd

The claim is struck out in respect of publications in England and Wales and Internet publications due to the absence of evidence that any readers had the requisite knowledge to attribute a defamatory innuendo meaning. The claim is allowed to proceed, subject to proper pleading, in respect of hard copies of the Sunday Times published in Russia and foreseeable republications in Russia that merely repeat the Defendant's allegation, provided the Claimant can establish the relevant knowledge among Russian readers and actionability under Russian law. The claim cannot proceed in respect of republications that go beyond the original allegations (novus actus interveniens).

Parties
Claimant: Elena Baturina; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Ruling on Amendments to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out in part; permission to amend granted in part; claim may proceed in respect of Russian publications subject to proper pleading.
Legal Topics
Innuendo Meaning, Republication Liability, Double Actionability, Forum Conveniens, Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Defamation Private International Law Innuendo Meaning Republication Liability Double Actionability Forum Conveniens Abuse of Process Summary Judgment +1 more

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

Parties

Elena Baturina

Claimant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Ruling on Amendments to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the articles published by the Defendant 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 entered for the Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process under the Jameel principle

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out in respect of publications in England and Wales and Internet publications due to the absence of evidence that any readers had the requisite knowledge to attribute a defamatory innuendo meaning. The claim is allowed to proceed, subject to proper pleading, in respect of hard copies of the Sunday Times published in Russia and foreseeable republications in Russia that merely repeat the Defendant's allegation, provided the Claimant can establish the relevant knowledge among Russian readers and actionability under Russian law. The claim cannot proceed in respect of republications that go beyond the original allegations (novus actus interveniens).

Court Disposition

Claim struck out in part; permission to amend granted in part; claim may proceed in respect of Russian publications subject to proper pleading.

Orders

  • Claim struck out as regards publications in England and Wales and Internet publications.
  • Permission to amend particulars of claim granted in part, limited to claims relating to Russian publications and foreseeable republications in Russia.