Svante Kumlin v. Camilla Jonsson
[2022] EWHC 1095 (Admin)
In the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Media and Communications List)
QB-2020-004091
Before Justice Julian Knowles
Decided on May 11, 2022

Relevancy of the Case: Jurisdiction of the court in cross-border online defamation claims

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Brussels Recast Regulation, 2012 (Article 4(1), 7(2))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The defendants published several articles about the claimants between September 29, 2020, and November 02, 2020. These articles accused the claimants of being a part of a network involved in eco-crime investment fraud and other illegal activities.
• However, the claimants denied these allegations. They stated that these articles caused numerous business opportunities to collapse.
• As a result, they have filed a defamation suit against the defendants.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

The claimants’ counsel:

• He contended that the published articles are defamatory in nature at common law. Further, there is serious harm caused due to allegations of fraud and dishonesty in these articles.
• While arguing for the first claimant’s centre of interest, the counsel submitted that it lies in London. The EEW Group has most of its projects in England than in all other countries.
• Even if the court holds that the centre of interest does not lie in the UK, the claimant may, in any event, claim remedy based on publication in this jurisdiction.

The defendants’ counsel:

• He argued that the court does not have jurisdiction over the claim pertaining to publication in the UK. Apart from Articles 4(1) and 7(2), the claimant could not justify the requisite standard elements of defamation. Moreover, the claimants have not provided sufficient evidence to show the financial loss incurred due to the publication of these articles.
• He stated that the claimants cannot use for damages in relation to a global position outside the UK. The claimant’s centre of interest must lie within the UK for that to happen. There is no evidence to support that the claimant has its centre of interest in the UK.

Opinion of the Bench

• The first claimant has a good arguable case of serious harm arising from these articles. For this issue, this court has jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of BRR.
• However, the second claimant does not have a good arguable case. This is because of the Marinari ruling, rules against reflective loss, and its position as a holding company.
• The first claimant has not sufficiently shown that his centre of interest lies in the UK. In this case, his claim is only limited to damages from the publication in England and Wales.

Final Decision

• The court asked the parties to draw up an order reflecting the oral judgment.

Parul Anand, an undergraduate student at the National Law University, Jodhpur, Rugved Mahamuni, an undergraduate student at the Vasantrao Pawar Law College, Baramati, and Satvik Mishra, an undergraduate student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, prepared this case summary during their internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.