Napag Trading Ltd & Ors v Gedi Gruppo Editoriale SPA & Anor

On a jurisdictional challenge, a claimant must establish a good arguable case for each relevant jurisdictional gateway and for the elements of the domestic claim relied upon. For a legal person, the centre of interests is assessed broadly by asking where it carries out the main part of its economic activities; registration alone is not conclusive. Under Defamation Act 2013, s 1(2), a profit-making body must show serious financial loss caused or likely to be caused by serious reputational harm. The assessment may involve inference, but requires careful attention to publication, readership, causation and the evidence of loss. The principle in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd does not eliminate causation where a claimant attributes a specific consequence to a particular publication.

The claimants brought libel proceedings against two publishers concerning Italian-language articles about alleged corruption, sanctions breaches and oil trading. The defendants applied under CPR Part 11 to challenge jurisdiction. The court considered whether each claimant had a good arguable case on reference, publication, serious harm and, for the First Claimant, centre of interests. The court also considered an application to amend the Particulars of Claim and a forum non conveniens application.

The central questions were whether the claimants could establish serious harm in England and Wales, including serious financial loss for the corporate claimants, and whether the First Claimant’s centre of interests was in England and Wales.

1. Good arguable case. The applicable test was that stated in Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA and explained by the Court of Appeal in Kaefer Aislamientos SA de CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA de CV. The claimant must provide a plausible evidential basis for the gateway. If possible, the court should form a reliable interim view on the evidence. If it cannot do so, a plausible but contested evidential basis may suffice. The test applied across the jurisdictional issues.
2. Centre of interests. For a legal person, the relevant question under Bolagsupplysningen OU v Svensk Handel AB was where the main part of its economic activities was carried out. Registered office was not conclusive, and no heightened standard of proof was required. The inquiry required a broad assessment of business generation, negotiation, execution, financing, administration and ancillary activity. The First Claimant narrowly had the better argument that its centre of interests was in England and Wales.
3. Serious harm. Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 requires harm that is actually or likely to be serious. For a profit-making body, s 1(2) requires serious financial loss consequent upon serious reputational harm. Loss may sometimes be inferred, particularly from grave allegations and widespread publication, but the evidence must be examined carefully. The threshold had to be satisfied for each statement and could not be achieved by aggregating separate imputations. A corporation also had to prove a trading reputation in the jurisdiction at publication.
4. Reference and publication. Defamation of a company did not automatically defame its officer, nor did defamation of an officer automatically defame the company. An objective basis was required for a reasonable reader to understand a reference to an unnamed claimant. Internet publication required evidence that at least one reader received and understood the material. An innuendo case required a good arguable case that a reader possessed the relevant extrinsic knowledge.
5. Causation. Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd prevented reliance in mitigation on similar defamatory publications by others, but did not remove causation issues under s 1. Where a claimant attributed a specific consequence to a particular publication, it had to establish a good arguable case that the consequence flowed from the publication sued upon.
6. Application and disposal. The Third Claimant failed to show serious harm or serious financial loss in England and Wales. The First Claimant failed to show serious harm, despite having a trading reputation and narrowly establishing its centre of interests in England and Wales. The Second Claimant likewise failed to show serious harm. Both defendants’ CPR Part 11 applications were granted. The court declared that it had no jurisdiction to try any of the claims and ordered the Claim Form to be set aside. The amendment application was dealt with in the judgment, and the forum non conveniens application was refused without prejudice to restoration if appropriate.