Berezovsky v Michaels & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns two libel actions brought by two claimants, a wealthy businessman and former politician, and a former deputy managing director of a Russian airline, against an American magazine and its editor for libel in a 1996 article. The proceedings before the trial judge involved applications to strike out certain pleaded meanings (Lucas-Box meanings) by the defendants, seek disclosure of evidence, and security for costs. The defendants had also challenged the forum, contending the cases should be heard in the United States, but this was rejected by the highest court. The current appeal focuses primarily on the decision to strike out some pleaded meanings in the businessman’s case.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether certain pleaded meanings (Lucas-Box meanings) that the claimants were corrupt or reasonably suspected of corruption should be struck out as unsupported by the article’s tenor.
2. Whether the defendants’ use of the defence of “reasonable grounds for belief” is appropriate and properly pleaded.
3. Whether permission to appeal should be granted on the narrow issue of the meaning of the libelous article and on the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) through the Human Rights Act.
4. Whether particular paragraphs of the defence pleading, including those relating to suspicions by the police and post-publication events, were properly struck out.
5. Whether the appeal should be expedited given the delay since publication.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The article’s framing allows readers to infer no more than that the claimants were suspected of criminal conduct on reasonable grounds, rather than direct allegations of corruption.
• The striking out of paragraphs relating to police suspicion infringes the defendants’ rights under Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR.
• The paragraphs concerning post-publication dissociation by the airline were wrongly struck out and are relevant to justifying the pleaded meaning of corruption.
• Permission to appeal should include the ability to argue under the Human Rights Act and should not be unduly limited.
• The appeal should be expedited due to the passage of time since the original publication.

Respondent's Arguments

• The “reasonable grounds for belief” defence is often a weak device used by media defendants to avoid proving allegations.
• The pleaded fallback meanings of reasonable suspicion do not fit the tenor of the article, which makes direct allegations of corruption.
• The paragraphs concerning police suspicion offend rules on repetition and conduct of libel pleadings and do not sufficiently relate to the claimant’s conduct.
• The post-publication facts are irrelevant to justification as they occurred after the article’s publication.
• Permission to appeal on meaning rulings should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
• The appeal should not be expedited given other litigants’ need for trial dates and the complexity of the case history.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the pleaded meanings under established English libel law criteria, focusing on whether the meanings could sensibly be borne by the article’s readership, identified chiefly as American businesspeople. The court noted the defendants’ reliance on the “reasonable grounds for belief” defence, often a weak device, and held that the article conveyed direct allegations of corruption rather than mere suspicion, leading to the striking out of fallback meanings based on suspicion. The court carefully reviewed the pleaded particulars, including those concerning police suspicion and post-publication events, applying libel pleading rules and relevance criteria. It acknowledged the interplay with the European Convention on Human Rights but held that such arguments should not be excluded from appeal. The court emphasized that permission to appeal on meaning should be granted sparingly but found that this case merited such permission. It declined to expedite the appeal, citing the need to respect other litigants’ interests and the case’s complex procedural history.

Holding and Implications

The court granted permission to appeal on specified issues, including the meaning of the article, the application of the Human Rights Act, and the striking out of certain pleaded paragraphs related to police suspicion and post-publication facts.

The appeal was permitted but not expedited.

The direct effect is that the case will proceed to trial with clarified pleadings and the opportunity to challenge the struck-out elements on appeal. No new precedent was established; the court reaffirmed existing principles on libel pleading, meaning, and appellate permission.