Berezovsky v Michaels

Last updated

Berezovsky v Michaels
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Full case nameBerezovsky v Michaels and Others, Glouchkov v Michaels and Others
Decided11 May 2000
Citations[2000] UKHL 25; [2000] 2 All ER 986; [2000] 1 WLR 1004
Case history
Prior actionBerezovsky v Forbes Inc (No. 1) [1999] E.M.L.R. 278
Subsequent actionBerezovsky v Forbes Inc (No. 2) [2001] E.M.L.R. 45
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Steyn
Lord Nolan
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Keywords
Libel, defamation, choice of forum

Berezovsky v Michaels [1] is an English libel decision in which the House of Lords allowed Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov to sue Forbes (via editor James Michaels) for libel in UK courts, despite the allegedly libelous material relating to their activities in Russia.

Contents

The case was also reported as Berezovsky v Forbes Inc.

Facts

The 30 December 1996 edition of Forbes described the plaintiffs, Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov, as "criminals on an outrageous scale." According to the judgment, the circulation of this issue was as follows:

SubscriptionsNewsstandsTotal
United States & Canada748,12337,587785,710
England & Wales5661,3491,915
Russia13013

The parties also agreed that, given online availability, the issue would have had about 6,000 readers in the UK.

Despite these relative circulation numbers, the plaintiffs brought their action in the UK.

Proceedings

At first instance, Popplewell J. held that where a party was not subject to a jurisdiction, it was for the court to determine the appropriate forum (citing Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] A.C. 460). It was found that the plaintiffs' connection with England was "tenuous" and Popplewell stayed the proceedings. After the plaintiffs provided further evidence of their connection with England on appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, and held that, per the Spilada test, as there was strong evidence of the plaintiffs' connection with England, England was a suitable forum for the trial.

Judgment

The House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal's decision by a 3–2 majority (Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope of Craighead dissenting), dismissing the appeals, and finding that on the additional evidence provided England was an appropriate forum and the trial of actions should proceed in England.

In his dissent, Lord Hoffmann observed:

The plaintiffs are forum shoppers in the most literal sense. They have weighed up the advantages to them of the various jurisdictions that might be available and decided that England is the best place in which to vindicate their international reputations. They want English law, English judicial integrity and the international publicity which would attend success in an English libel action.

Significance

Scholars and commentators have suggested that the case made the UK more popular for libel tourism.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial functions of the House of Lords</span> Historical role of the UK House of Lords

Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boris Berezovsky (businessman)</span> Russian businessman (1946–2013)

Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, also known as Platon Elenin, was a Russian business oligarch, government official, engineer and mathematician and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He had the federal state civilian service rank of 1st class Active State Councillor of the Russian Federation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicature Acts</span> UK laws restructuring the English-Welsh court system (1873–1899)

In the history of the courts of England and Wales, the Judicature Acts were a series of acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts of England and Wales. The first two acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, with a further series of amending acts.

Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of litigants taking actions to have their legal case heard in the court they believe is most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some jurisdictions have, for example, become known as "plaintiff-friendly" and thus have attracted plaintiffs to file new cases there, even if there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.

Nikolay Alekseevich Glushkov was a Russian businessman who was the deputy director of Aeroflot and a finance manager for AvtoVAZ who died in suspicious circumstances. After claiming that Aeroflot worked as a "cash cow to support international spying operations", he was arrested and tried in Russia on the allegation of funnelling Aeroflot money through another company in 1999. He was convicted and released in 2004, after serving three years. He emigrated to the UK in 2010 and received political asylum. In 2017, he was convicted in absentia in Russia for allegedly stealing money from Aeroflot, but his extradition from Britain had been denied. Initially treated as "unexplained", his death is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police who are treating it as a murder inquiry. On 9 April 2021, the West London Coroner's Court ruled Glushkov was unlawfully killed, with injuries consistent with strangulation.

<i>Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd</i>

The Spiliada or Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd[1986] UKHL 10, [1987] AC 460 is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It has been described as the "seminal case" on jurisdictional issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elizabeth Gloster</span> Former judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (born 1949)

Dame Elizabeth Gloster, Lady Popplewell, DBE, PC is a British lawyer who was a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and Vice-President of the Civil Division. She was the first female judge of the Commercial Court.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

<i>Mozambique rule</i>

The Moçambique rule, or Mozambique rule, is a common law rule in private international law. The rule renders actions relating to title in foreign land, the right to possession of foreign land, and trespass to foreign land non-justiciable in common law jurisdictions. It was established in 1893 by the House of Lords decision in British South Africa Co v. Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602.

<i>Lubbe v Cape plc</i>

Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] UKHL 41 is a conflict of laws case, which is also highly significant for the question of lifting the corporate veil in relation to tort victims. In this case it was alleged, and postulated by the House of Lords, that in principle it is possible to show that a parent company owes a direct duty of care in tort to anybody injured by a subsidiary company in a group.

<i>Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that has brought greater certainty to the question of a real and substantial connection in the assumption of civil jurisdiction by Canadian courts in matters concerning the conflict of laws.

<i>Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein</i>

HRH the Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein, was a decision of the English Court of Appeal relating to the conflict of laws, and specifically whether the English courts should take jurisdiction in relation to a claim which had no substantial connections with England on the basis that the defendant was served with proceedings during a brief visit to the country.

<i>Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v Lee Kui Jak</i>

Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v Lee Kui Jak[1987] UKPC 12, [1987] AC 871 is a judicial decision of Privy Council on appeal from Brunei which was for many years, and arguably still is, the leading authority in relation to anti-suit injunctions under the English common law.

<i>Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd and others</i> 1993 English defamation court case

Esther Louise Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd., Brian Radford, Richard Stott and Mirror Group Newspapers plc. [1993] EWCA Civ 16, [1993] 4 All ER 975, also shortened to Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers by legal analysts, is a 1993 English defamation court case. The case was brought by the television presenter Esther Rantzen against Mirror Group Newspapers, publisher of The People which had alleged that Rantzen had protected a child abuser after he had given information about child abuse in a school.

Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd was an English libel case in 1970 which raised important legal issues concerning exemplary damages and the role of precedents in English law. It is also known for the involvement of the controversial writer David Irving.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">King's Bench Division</span> Division of the English High Court of Justice

The King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice deals with a wide range of common law cases and has supervisory responsibility over certain lower courts.

References