Qatar Airways Group QCSC v Middle East News FZ LLC & Ors

At a jurisdiction and summary judgment hearing, a claimant need show a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success and a good arguable case on the relevant gateway. The court should avoid a mini-trial, while deciding suitable points of law and rejecting unsupported factual assertions.

For internet malicious falsehood, publication occurs where content is accessed. Foreign law may ordinarily be presumed to correspond with English law at the jurisdiction stage unless the defendant shows a material difference. There is no freestanding substantive rule preventing a malicious falsehood claim for foreign publication where a jurisdictional gateway is otherwise satisfied. Forum suitability requires a practical assessment of the whole dispute, including access to justice and equality of arms.

Qatar Airways Group alleged that a television and internet video concerning the Qatar air blockade conveyed false and threatening messages about the risk of interception or destruction of Qatar Airways aircraft. It brought claims in malicious falsehood, conspiracy, unlawful interference with business and related torts against four media companies.

The foreign defendants challenged service out, contending that there was no serious issue to be tried, that the claims were inadequately pleaded or time-barred, that the gateways were unavailable, and that the UAE was the appropriate forum. The UK defendant separately sought strike out and summary judgment.

1. Disposition. The claims against Middle East News UK Limited were struck out and dismissed by summary judgment. The UAE defendants’ challenge to service out was dismissed. Permission was granted to amend the Particulars of Claim in the proposed form, except for the Communications Act 2003 claim and the claims against the UK defendant. The limitation position concerning the joinder of Al Arabiya News Channel FZ LLC remained open.
2. Serious issue to be tried. The court applied the Part 24 approach. The claimant had to show a realistic prospect of success, but the court should avoid a mini-trial and normally should not resolve conflicting factual evidence without disclosure and cross-examination. Points of law suitable for determination could be decided summarily.
3. Malicious falsehood. The tort required falsity, reference to or concern for the claimant or its business, malice and special damage, subject to Defamation Act 1952, s 3. A substantial number of viewers could understand the video to convey a risk to Qatar Airways passengers and that such action was permitted by international law. The competing evidence concerning the video’s creation and the alleged involvement of senior figures raised a triable issue and was not fanciful.
4. Foreign law and publication. At the jurisdiction stage, the claimant could rely on the presumption that foreign law was materially the same as English law, unless the defendant contended and showed otherwise. Internet publication occurred when content was accessed, rather than when it was uploaded. The court rejected the suggested freestanding substantive rule that malicious falsehood claims must be confined to English publications.
5. Procedure and gateways. Adding a party before service under CPR 17.1 was not necessarily a nullity after limitation had expired; the opposing party could seek relief under CPR 17.2, with limitation issues managed later. CPR 19.5(3)(a) permitted substitution for a party named by mistake, not addition of a new party. The tort, injunction and connected-claims gateways were satisfied on the evidence.
6. Forum. England was the proper forum. Although the UAE courts were regarded as independent and fair, the political circumstances created serious access-to-justice and equality-of-arms disadvantages for the claimant. England had substantial connections through publication, loss, witnesses, applicable procedures and neutrality.
7. Full and frank disclosure. The alleged omissions on the without-notice application were immaterial. The claimant’s solicitor had acted properly and fairly.