The 30 December 1996 edition of Forbes described the plaintiffs, Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov, as "criminals on an outrageous scale." According to the judgment, the circulation of this issue was as follows:
Subscriptions
Newsstands
Total
United States & Canada
748,123
37,587
785,710
England & Wales
566
1,349
1,915
Russia
13
0
13
The parties also agreed that, given online availability, the issue would have had about 6,000 readers in the UK.
Despite these relative circulation numbers, the plaintiffs brought their action in the UK.
Proceedingsedit
At first instance, Popplewell J. held that where a party was not subject to a jurisdiction, it was for the court to determine the appropriate forum (citing Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] A.C. 460). It was found that the plaintiffs' connection with England was "tenuous" and stayed the proceedings. After the plaintiffs provided further evidence of their connection with England on appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, and held that, per the Spilada test, as there was strong evidence of the plaintiffs' connection with England, England was a suitable forum for the trial.
Judgmentedit
The House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal's decision by a 3–2 majority (Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope of Craighead dissenting), dismissing the appeals, and finding that on the additional evidence provided England was an appropriate forum and the trial of actions should proceed in England.
In his dissent, Lord Hoffmann observed:
The plaintiffs are forum shoppers in the most literal sense. They have weighed up the advantages to them of the various jurisdictions that might be available and decided that England is the best place in which to vindicate their international reputations. They want English law, English judicial integrity and the international publicity which would attend success in an English libel action.
Significanceedit
Scholars and commentators have suggested that the case made the UK more popular for libel tourism.
Referencesedit
^[1], Berezovsky v Michaels, House of Lords, 10 May 2000
April 10, 2024
berezovsky, michaels, this, article, needs, additional, citations, verification, please, help, improve, this, article, adding, citations, reliable, sources, unsourced, material, challenged, removed, find, sources, news, newspapers, books, scholar, jstor, janua. This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Berezovsky v Michaels news newspapers books scholar JSTOR January 2017 Learn how and when to remove this template message Berezovsky v Michaels 1 is an English libel decision in which the House of Lords allowed Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov to sue Forbes via editor James Michaels for libel in UK courts despite the allegedly libelous material relating to their activities in Russia Berezovsky v MichaelsCourtHouse of LordsFull case nameBerezovsky v Michaels and Others Glouchkov v Michaels and OthersDecided11 May 2000Citation s 2000 UKHL 25 2000 2 All ER 986 2000 1 WLR 1004Case historyPrior action s Berezovsky v Forbes Inc No 1 1999 E M L R 278Subsequent action s Berezovsky v Forbes Inc No 2 2001 E M L R 45Court membershipJudge s sittingLord Steyn Lord Nolan Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of WoodboroughKeywordsLibel defamation choice of forumThe case was also reported as Berezovsky v Forbes Inc Contents 1 Facts 2 Proceedings 3 Judgment 4 Significance 5 ReferencesFacts editThe 30 December 1996 edition of Forbes described the plaintiffs Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov as criminals on an outrageous scale According to the judgment the circulation of this issue was as follows Subscriptions Newsstands TotalUnited States amp Canada 748 123 37 587 785 710England amp Wales 566 1 349 1 915Russia 13 0 13The parties also agreed that given online availability the issue would have had about 6 000 readers in the UK Despite these relative circulation numbers the plaintiffs brought their action in the UK Proceedings editAt first instance Popplewell J held that where a party was not subject to a jurisdiction it was for the court to determine the appropriate forum citing Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd 1987 A C 460 It was found that the plaintiffs connection with England was tenuous and stayed the proceedings After the plaintiffs provided further evidence of their connection with England on appeal the Court of Appeal overturned the decision and held that per the Spilada test as there was strong evidence of the plaintiffs connection with England England was a suitable forum for the trial Judgment editThe House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal s decision by a 3 2 majority Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope of Craighead dissenting dismissing the appeals and finding that on the additional evidence provided England was an appropriate forum and the trial of actions should proceed in England In his dissent Lord Hoffmann observed The plaintiffs are forum shoppers in the most literal sense They have weighed up the advantages to them of the various jurisdictions that might be available and decided that England is the best place in which to vindicate their international reputations They want English law English judicial integrity and the international publicity which would attend success in an English libel action Significance editScholars and commentators have suggested that the case made the UK more popular for libel tourism References edit 1 Berezovsky v Michaels House of Lords 10 May 2000 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Berezovsky v Michaels amp oldid 1185572858, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
