Back
2010 MarsdenLR 1995
HIGH COURT ENGLAND AND WALES
ELENA BATURINA – Appellant
Versus
TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD – Respondent
[Case No: HQ09D04581]
Defamation claims require a sustainable innuendo meaning; failure to establish this renders the claim untenable. Knowledge of extraneous facts among the audience is vital for actionable meanings.
Headnote:(A) Defamation - Natural and Ordinary Meaning - Innuendo - The Claimant alleged that the Defendant's articles falsely implicated her in the ownership of a property through an offshore company, leading to reputational harm. The court acknowledged that without establishing a viable innuendo meaning, claims would fail (Paras 1, 4).
(B) Burden of Proof - The Defendant successfully argued that the articles did not confer defamatory meanings as pleaded, nor did they amount to republication liability for third-party publications (Paras 12, 18, 59).
Facts of the case:
The Claimant, a prominent businesswoman, contended that the Defendant's articles falsely alleged her ownership of a mansion, resulting in reputational damage. The trial focused on whether the allegedly defamatory meanings were actionable under English law (Paras 1-3, 8-10).
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the innuendo meanings initially pleaded lacked sufficient basis, leading to the failure of the Claimant's claim except for a limited allowance regarding publications in Russia (Paras 65-67).
Issues: The court addressed whether the articles could bear defamatory meanings and if republications in Russia were actionable. It scrutinized the standard of proof required for innuendo claims (Paras 26, 59).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that innuendo meanings require a specific basis to succeed in defamation claims, focusing on the knowledge of the intended audience regarding relevant extraneous facts (Paras 27, 32).
Result: Parts of the claim were allowed to proceed to trial, specifically regarding limited publications in the Russian Federation (Paras 66-68).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant's identity and articles' publication. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim hinges on viable innuendos. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. consideration of reader knowledge for innuendo. (Para 22 , 28 , 56) |
| 4. foreseeability in republication impacts liability. (Para 39 , 55) |
| 5. jurisdiction related to russian publications affirmed. (Para 66 , 68) |
[1] The Claimant, Elena Baturina, is a citizen of the Russian Federation and the wife of Yuri Luzhkov, who has been the Mayor of Moscow for the last 18 years. She also conducts a property investment business through a corporate entity known as INTECO. She claims remedies in respect of articles contained in the Sunday Times for 27 September 2009. The first appeared on the front page under the heading "Russians $100m London palace" and the second on p 3 under the heading "Yelena Baturina: bunker billionairess digs deep". These are said to contain allegations defamatory of the Claimant.
[2] The Defendant, Times Newspapers Ltd, is the publisher of the newspaper and of the Times Online website, through which the articles were also published, although only for a very short period. They were taken down by 29 September.
[3] There is no need to set out the content of the articles in extenso. It will suffice to say that their effect was to convey the allegation that a large mansion in Highgate, known as Witanhurst, had been acquired by the Claimant through an off shore company based in the British Virgin Islands referred to as "Safran Holdings". The purchase price was said to be £50m and mention was made of a further £50m to be spent on the property. Those allegations in themselves are not defamatory.
[4] It has recently been recognised, on the Claimants application to amend the particulars of claim, that her claim could only survive on the basis of setting up at least one viable innuendo meaning. Without a sustainable innuendo, the claim would be doomed to failure.
[5] Reliance has been placed on a photo montage appearing alongside the p 3 article, which apparently shows the Claimant and her husband waving to onlookers. This has obviously been superimposed on a photograph of the house in question. A good deal of attention has been devoted to castigating the montage which has been described as a "blatant forgery". This is a point which should have been laid to rest long ago, but it is said to represent an issue fit to be tried by jury as being relevant to the aggravation of damages. It can plainly be referred to, for what it is worth, as part of the context, but it does not justify an allegation of dishonesty against the Defendant.
[6] On the other hand, if the Defendants primary submissions now before the court are accepted, the question of damages would not arise. By its application notice dated 16 December 2009, the Defendant seeks a ruling that the words complained of are incapable of bearing the pleaded meanings or any meaning defamatory of the Claimant. The natural and ordinary meanings originally pleaded were framed in rather curious terms. In para 10, it was said that the words and photograph contained the imputation that " ... the Claimant was the beneficial owner of Witanhurst ... notwithstanding the fact that she is not the beneficial owner and/or that there was no evidence in the Jersey companies register or at the Land Registry or elsewhere that linked the Claimant with either Safran or Witanhurst". (The reference to Jersey arises because at one time it seems to have been thought that this was where the company was registered.)
[7] In para 13 of the original particulars of claim, the natural and ordinary meaning was also expressed as being " ... that the Claimant was the beneficial owner".
[8] In para 14, it was alternatively alleged that the words conveyed the defamatory meaning " ... that the Claimant had arranged for Witanhurst to be purchased by an off shore company using nominees as the shareholders and officers of that company in order to hide her interest as the beneficia
