Wright v Ver

Under Defamation Act 2013, s.9, a claimant suing a defendant domiciled outside the specified jurisdictions must prove that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place for the claim. The burden is evidential and there is no discretion to hear the claim if the threshold is not met.

The court must assess global publication and reputational harm in two stages: first, the nature and extent of publication in each jurisdiction; second, the harm to reputation in those jurisdictions. Publication figures, targeting, reputational connections, fair-trial considerations and convenience may be relevant, but the assessment is not a balance-of-convenience exercise.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning publications on YouTube and Twitter alleging that he had fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto. The defendant was domiciled in St Kitts and Nevis and was served while visiting England.

The claimant later amended the claim to include further publications. The defendant challenged jurisdiction under s.9 of the Defamation Act 2013 and sought to set aside an order concerning service of documents for alleged material non-disclosure. The central issues were whether England and Wales was clearly the most appropriate place for the claim and whether the claimant had been required to raise s.9 before issuing the claim.

1. Jurisdiction. The claim was struck out because the claimant had not shown that England and Wales was clearly the most appropriate place to bring it. Under s.9(2) of the Defamation Act 2013, the burden lies on the claimant. The assessment is of evidence, not discretion, and failure to satisfy the threshold defeats jurisdiction even if no alternative jurisdiction is shown to be the most appropriate.
2. Global publication and harm. The court must consider the global position required by s.9(2) and s.9(3). It adopted a two-stage approach: first, assess the nature and extent of publication in each jurisdiction; secondly, assess the evidence of harm to reputation in those jurisdictions. Publication numbers are important but not decisive. A small, well-directed publication may cause greater harm than a larger indiscriminate publication.
3. Relevant factors. The court may consider whether online material is predominantly directed at an audience in England and Wales, the claimant’s reputation and connections in each jurisdiction, convenience and expense, the availability of a fair hearing and the value of vindication elsewhere. Residence and convenience alone carry little weight where the claimant has a substantial global reputation. Any exclusion of a candidate jurisdiction on fair-trial grounds requires cogent evidence.
4. Application. The publications were global and were not targeted at England and Wales. Approximately 7% of publication occurred there, compared with substantially greater publication in the United States. The claimant gave no objective evidence of reputational harm in England and Wales or elsewhere. His UK reputation was an inseparable segment of a global reputation, and the evidence did not show that England and Wales was clearly the most appropriate jurisdiction.
5. Set-aside application. Section 9 restricts the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine an action; it does not require permission to issue a Claim Form. Jurisdictional objections are governed by the CPR, principally CPR Part 11, and may be raised by the defendant after service. The Claim Form had been validly served personally while the defendant was present in the jurisdiction. The set-aside application would therefore have been refused because there was no material non-disclosure.