Sloutsker v Romanova (Rev 1)

On an assessment of remedies following default judgment in libel, the court will ordinarily proceed on the claimant’s unchallenged pleaded case. It need not decide the merits or determine the exact meaning of the words, unless the pleaded meaning is plainly impossible or non-defamatory.

Damages are compensatory. They reflect the gravity and extent of publication, injury to reputation and feelings, and the need for proportionate vindication in the jurisdiction concerned. A final injunction may restrain a foreign defendant from republishing serious libels where there is a real prospect of repetition and the order is necessary and proportionate.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning online articles, a blogpost and a radio programme published by the defendant. The pleaded meanings alleged that he had arranged or threatened the murder of the defendant’s husband, fabricated criminal evidence, and corrupted judicial and prosecuting officials.

In an earlier ruling, the court had dismissed the defendant’s challenge to service and jurisdiction: [2015] EWHC 545 (QB). The defendant then failed to serve a Defence. Default judgment was entered and the court listed a remedies hearing.

The defendant did not attend that hearing. Her letter to the court made no application for an adjournment or to set aside judgment. The issues were whether the hearing should proceed, the proper damages award, and whether a final injunction should be granted.

1. The remedies hearing proceeded in the defendant’s absence. The defendant had proper notice of the hearing, the evidence and the available procedural steps. Her letter was neither an application identifying an order sought nor evidence verified by a statement of truth. It did not establish that language, financial or representation difficulties had denied her a fair opportunity to defend the claim. Nor did it disclose cogent material suggesting an arguable defence sufficient to justify treating it as a request to set aside the default judgment.
2. Damages were assessed on the pleaded meanings. Under CPR 12.11(1), a claimant obtaining default judgment is ordinarily entitled to judgment on the unchallenged statement of case. The court therefore did not need to decide whether the pleaded meanings were the only or exact meanings of the publications. The meanings were, in any event, reasonable and extremely serious.
3. The proper global compensatory award was £110,000. The allegations included conspiracy to murder and corruption of judges and prosecutors. They reached a substantial audience in this jurisdiction, where the claimant had a substantial reputation. The award compensated injury to reputation and feelings and provided proportionate vindication. It excluded loss caused by publication outside the jurisdiction.
4. The court granted a final injunction. Default judgment meant that the court proceeded on the basis that there was no defence or justification for further interference with the claimant’s reputation. Continued availability of the publications, the defendant’s assertion of truth, and later similar allegations created a real prospect of repetition. A personal injunction limited to publication in the jurisdiction, with the usual Babanaft proviso, was necessary and proportionate.

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): This was a first-instance remedies judgment after default judgment. An earlier ruling in the same proceedings dismissed the defendant’s jurisdiction and service challenge: [2015] EWHC 545 (QB).