Berezovsky v Michaels

Berezovsky v Michaels
Court	House of Lords
Decided	11 May 2000
Citation(s)	[2000] UKHL 25; [2000] 2 All ER 986; [2000] 1 WLR 1004
Case history
Prior action(s)	Berezovsky v Forbes Inc (No. 1) [1999] E.M.L.R. 278
Subsequent action(s)	Berezovsky v Forbes Inc (No. 2) [2001] E.M.L.R. 45
Court membership
Judge(s) 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 for libel in UK courts, despite the allegedly libelous material relating to their activities in Russia.

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 judgement, the circulation of this issue was as follows:

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), found that the plaintiffs' connection with England were "tenuous" and 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, where there was strong evidence of the plaintiffs connections 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 Hoffman 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 Hoffman 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.

References