Public Joint Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company v HarperCollins Publishers Limited

In a corporate defamation claim, the court must determine the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader by the words read once in their proper context. A company is defamed only where the words refer to it and convey a defamatory meaning about the company itself. Allegations concerning an individual do not defame the company merely because the individual is closely associated with it. The words must implicate the company in the alleged wrongdoing or suggest that it merits investigation for the same reasons. A company must also establish the statutory threshold of serious financial loss, although that issue may arise later. The court found one allegation defamatory, but held that the remaining meanings either concerned third parties or included opinion and did not defame the company.

The claimant, a Russian oil company, sued the publisher and author of Putin’s People in defamation. The claim concerned 19 passages relating to four topics: the purchase of Severnaya Neft, the acquisition of Yukos assets, the claimant’s initial public offering, and a proposed oil transaction connected with Liga Nord.

The trial was confined to preliminary issues concerning natural and ordinary meaning, whether the meanings were defamatory at common law, and whether the statements were fact or opinion. No truth or other substantive defence was determined.

1. Approach to meaning. The court applied the principles stated in Koutsogiannnis v The Random House Group Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 25. Meaning was assessed by reference to the ordinary reasonable reader reading the passages once and in the context of the whole Book. Over-elaborate textual analysis was avoided.
2. Corporate defamation. A company may sue for words tending to damage its business reputation, but the words must refer to the company and convey a defamatory meaning about it. The court followed the principles collected in Triplark Limited v Northwood Hall (Freehold) Ltd [2019] EWHC 3494 (QB), including the need for a substantial adverse effect and the possibility of abuse where a company is used as a front for an individual. A company is not defamed by allegations concerning an officer unless the company itself is implicated or merits investigation for the same reasons: Jameel v Times Newspapers Ltd [2004] EMLR 665.
3. The Severnaya Neft passages conveyed a strong suspicion that the claimant had paid an inflated price so that the overpayment would reach President Putin or his KGB associates. The imputation was defamatory and the statements were factual.
4. The Yukos passages conveyed wrongdoing by the Kremlin, Mr Sechin and the siloviki, with the claimant benefiting from the resulting acquisition. They did not implicate the claimant in that wrongdoing. The meaning was therefore not defamatory and the statements were factual.
5. The IPO passages conveyed that the offering was effectively a private placement secured by Kremlin or KGB involvement. The criticism was directed at those actors, not the claimant. The central description of the IPO as more like a private placement was opinion; the remaining material was factual. The meaning was not defamatory.
6. The Liga Nord passage conveyed that Mr Savoini proposed a possible deal involving Rosneft oil. It did not suggest that the claimant was party to, authorised, or willing to participate in the discussions. The meaning was not defamatory.