ANAR MAHMUDOV v MARIA LUISA GONI SANZBERRO

In an international online libel claim against defendants domiciled abroad, the claimant’s centre of interests does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction for a global claim. The claimant must first establish, to the good arguable case standard, every component of a libel actionable in England and Wales, including publication, defamatory tendency and serious harm caused by publication within the jurisdiction. The centre of interests criterion identifies the place where online damage is most significantly suffered and may permit global relief where an actionable local tort is established. It does not replace the requirement for a nationally actionable tort. Serious harm under Defamation Act 2013, section 1, must be established in relation to the relevant publication and jurisdiction.

The claimants, the children of a former Azerbaijani head of national security, sought to bring English defamation proceedings against a Spanish journalist and Spanish publishers concerning foreign-language online articles about the origins of the family’s wealth. They sought global damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants applied under CPR 11, challenging the High Court’s jurisdiction. The central issue was whether the claimants could rely on their alleged centre of interests in England, or whether they first had to establish an actionable English libel, including serious harm caused by publication in England and Wales.

1. The application succeeded. The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to try the claim.
2. Under the Brussels Recast Regulation, the general rule is jurisdiction at the defendants’ domicile. The special jurisdiction for tort claims depends on the place where the harmful event occurred. In international online libel, eDate Advertising GmbH v X [2012] QB 654 introduced the centre of interests as a route to global remedies, but did not create a freestanding jurisdiction based solely on the claimant’s centre of interests.
3. The proper primary question was whether the components of a libel actionable in England and Wales had been established to the good arguable case standard. The claimant had to provide a plausible evidential basis for each component, and the assessment had to relate to the position when proceedings were commenced.
4. The relevant components included publication to at least one person other than the claimant in England and Wales, defamatory meaning and tendency at common law, and serious harm under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. Serious harm required an assessment of impact, including publication scale, readership, gravity and causation. Harm could not be aggregated across separate defendants or publications, although a defendant could not reduce responsibility for its own publication merely by pointing to other publications.
5. The claimants had a good arguable case that the articles were defamatory at common law. However, the evidence of publication, serious reputational harm in England and Wales, and causation by the defendants’ foreign-language publications was insufficient. The evidence did not establish that an identifiable UK reader who knew the claimants had read the articles, and other English-language publications provided substantial alternative explanations for any UK harm.
6. Even assuming that the claimants’ centre of interests was in the UK, the centre of gravity of the harmful event was Spain. The defendants were domiciled there, first publication occurred there, most readership was there, and the article principally concerned the claimants’ Spanish interests. The UK was not sufficiently closely connected to provide a fair forum for trial.

First-instance jurisdictional decision. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.