Wright v. Ver [2020] EWCA Civ 672: Clarifying Jurisdiction Under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013

Introduction

Wright v. Ver ([2020] EWCA Civ 672) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on May 29, 2020. The crux of the appeal centered around the interpretation and application of Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013, particularly concerning the appropriate jurisdiction for defamation actions. Dr. Craig Wright, the claimant, alleged that Roger Ver, the defendant, had libelled him through various online publications asserting that Wright fraudulently claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. The initial judgment by Mr. Justice Nicklin declared that England and Wales was not clearly the most appropriate jurisdiction for the claim, leading Wright to appeal the decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Wright's appeal, affirming the lower court's decision that England and Wales were not the most appropriate jurisdiction to hear the defamation claim. The appellate judges agreed with Mr. Justice Nicklin's assessment that the majority of the defamatory publications had a more substantial presence in the United States, both in terms of distribution and the potential impact on Wright's reputation. Consequently, the court held that the requirements under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 were not satisfied, as England and Wales did not clearly emerge as the most appropriate venue compared to alternative jurisdictions like the US.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several precedents to contextualize the application of Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013:

Ahuja v Politika Novine I Magazini DOO and others [2015] EWHC 3380 (QB); [2016] 1 WLR 1414 – Highlighted the legislative intent behind Section 9 to counteract "libel tourism" by non-domiciled defendants.
Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] EWCA Civ 75; [2005] QB 946 – Established the doctrine of abuse of process in defamation cases.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] USKC 27; [2019] 3 WLR 18 – Emphasized that Parliament’s intent is paramount in interpreting statutory provisions.
Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB); [2016] EMLR 12 – Discussed the significance of publication extent in determining appropriate jurisdiction.

These precedents collectively reinforced the Court's approach in evaluating jurisdictional appropriateness, ensuring consistency with established legal principles.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on a two-stage approach initially employed by the lower court:

Nature and Extent of Publication: Assessing where and how widely the defamatory statements were disseminated.
Damage to Reputation: Evaluating the harm inflicted on the claimant's reputation within each jurisdiction.

The appellate court commended the initial judgment's consideration of these factors but critiqued the rigid two-stage framework, advocating for a more holistic, multifactorial analysis. Key considerations included:

Publication Metrics: The overwhelming presence of defamatory content in the US, both in YouTube viewership and Twitter followers.
Global Reputation: Dr. Wright's international standing, with significant professional ties and business activities centered outside the UK.
Jurisdictional Consent: The defendant's (Roger Ver's) apparent preference and consent to US jurisdiction, bolstered by the presence of US courts willing to hear the case.

The Court emphasized that while Dr. Wright had established connections to the UK, the preponderance of evidence favored the US as the more appropriate jurisdiction for adjudicating the defamation claim.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future defamation cases involving international elements. By reinforcing the standards under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013, the Court of Appeal delineated clearer boundaries for jurisdictional appropriateness. Key impacts include:

Enhanced Scrutiny of Publication Reach: Courts will now more meticulously assess the distribution and impact of defamatory statements across multiple jurisdictions before asserting local jurisdiction.
Global Reputation Consideration: Recognizing the importance of a claimant's international reputation in determining appropriate jurisdiction, especially in the digital age where content can rapidly transcend borders.
Limiting Libel Tourism: By upholding the initial decision, the judgment supports the legislative intent to mitigate frivolous defamation suits filed in jurisdictions where the defamation impact is minimal.

Consequently, legal practitioners must now ensure comprehensive evidence demonstrating the prominence of both the publication and the claimant's reputation within the jurisdiction to be considered appropriate.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013

Section 9 restricts defamation claims against individuals not domiciled in the UK or certain other jurisdictions. It stipulates that for a UK court to have authority over such a case, it must be clearly the most appropriate location to hear the claim compared to other possible jurisdictions where the defamatory statement was published.

Libel Tourism

"Libel tourism" refers to the practice of filing defamation lawsuits in jurisdictions perceived to be plaintiff-friendly, often where the defamatory statements have minimal impact, thereby exploiting procedural advantages to suppress criticism or unfavorable reporting.

Jurisdictional Appropriateness

This concept assesses whether a court is the best venue for adjudicating a legal claim, based on factors like where the alleged harm occurred, the location of the parties, and where evidence and witnesses are most accessible.

Conclusion

Wright v. Ver serves as a crucial affirmation of the principles underpinning Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013. By dismissing Dr. Wright's appeal, the Court of Appeal underscored the necessity of demonstrating that England and Wales is unequivocally the most fitting jurisdiction for defamation claims, especially in cases with a substantial transnational dimension. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive, evidence-based approach in assessing jurisdictional appropriateness, thereby safeguarding against potential abuses like libel tourism. Legal professionals must now navigate these nuanced requirements diligently, ensuring that defamation actions are judiciously filed in jurisdictions where the claimant's reputation and the defamatory statements hold the greatest significance.