Al Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL

Permission to appeal may be granted where further submissions show that the proposed appeal is a proper case for consideration. Related appeals may be organised together where they raise overlapping questions and can be dealt with efficiently by the same constitution of the court. Costs arising from permission applications may be reserved as costs in the appeal, while consequential costs in associated proceedings may require no separate order.

Al Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation renewed its application for permission to appeal after permission had initially been refused on the papers. The proposed appeal concerned international banking norms. The Court of Appeal granted permission.

The court also gave directions for related libel appeals involving qualified privilege, the presumption and burden of proof of falsity, and the presumption of injury or harm. The judgment concerned permission applications, hearing allocation and costs, rather than the substantive merits.

1. Permission to appeal. Lord Justice Sedley, having considered the applicant’s further submissions under the new Practice Direction, was persuaded that the Al Rajhi appeal was a proper case for permission. Permission was granted in appeal 2004/1105.
2. Related proceedings. No separate order was required in proceedings 2004/1106 and 2004/1108 because their costs were consequential. The renewed permission application in Mohammed Jameel v Wall Street Journal was adjourned to the Full Court, which would determine the relevant issue of principle in a related appeal.
3. Case management. Related appeals were grouped into hearing slots according to their overlapping issues. The first slot was directed to qualified-privilege issues, including the Reynolds privilege issue and the Bonnick v Morris issue. The second slot was directed to the remaining issues, including international banking norms and disclosure.
4. Orders. Applications were granted where stated. The application in appeal 2004/0221 was adjourned to the Full Court. Costs of the applicant’s permission applications were costs in the appeal, with no order as to costs for the remaining matters.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was initially refused on the papers, but was granted on renewed submissions for appeal 2004/1105. The appeal arose from the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, before Mr Justice Eady; no citation for that decision is stated.