Saïd v Groupe L'Express & Anor

For jurisdiction in an international libel claim, publication in England and Wales may support the mosaic jurisdiction for damage sustained there. An injunction against continuing online publication by a defendant domiciled in another Member State is available only where the claimant’s centre of interests is in England and Wales. That centre will generally correspond to habitual residence, although other factors may establish a closer centre. A claimant need not identify an individual publishee or plead special damage to show serious harm under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013. Serious harm may be inferred from the nature, scale and likely audience of publication. The absence of jurisdiction for an internet injunction does not necessarily prevent a final injunction concerning printed publication.

The defendants, a French magazine publisher and its editorial director, challenged the English court’s jurisdiction over a libel claim concerning printed and online articles published principally in France. The claimant limited the damages claim to publication in England and Wales and sought an injunction restraining further publication. The defendants argued that the claimant had not shown serious harm, that the claim was an abuse because there was no real or substantial tort in the jurisdiction, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over injunctive relief.

The central issues were whether the claimant had a good arguable case that serious harm had occurred in England and Wales, whether England and Wales was his centre of interests for the purpose of online injunctive relief, and whether the claim was liable to be rejected as disproportionate.

1. Application partly allowed. The claimant failed to establish a good arguable case that England and Wales was his centre of interests. Since the defendants were domiciled in France, the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining continued online publication.
2. The relevant jurisdictional framework was the Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. Under Article 4(1), defendants are generally sued where domiciled. Article 7(2) permits proceedings in the place where the harmful event occurred. Under Shevill v Presse Alliance SA [1995] 2 AC 18, the claimant may pursue damage suffered in each state of distribution. That mosaic option remained applicable to print publications.
3. For online publications, eDate Advertising GmbH v X; Martinez v MGN Ltd [2012] QB 654 and Bolagsupplysningen OÜ v Svensk Handel AB [2018] QB 963 established that an injunction may be sought in the defendant’s domicile or in the claimant’s centre of interests. Habitual residence is normally the centre of interests, but other factors may establish a particularly close link. The claimant’s extensive connections with England did not show that England displaced Monaco as his habitual residence, and it was also possible that no single centre of interests could be identified.
4. The claimant had a good arguable case that the publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013. A claimant need not identify a particular publishee who thought less of him, and special damage is unnecessary. Serious harm could be inferred from the seriousness of the allegations, the scale of publication and the significance of likely readers conducting due diligence.
5. The defendants’ statement that they would not republish the precise article did not answer the continuing online publication or the pleaded risk of publishing the same or similar defamatory words. Although no internet injunction was available, that did not preclude a final injunction concerning printed publication if the claim succeeded at trial.
6. The claim was not shown to be an abuse under the Jameel v Dow Jones Inc [2005] QB 946 principle. The claimant had a good arguable case that a real and substantial tort had occurred and that the claim was worth pursuing.