In the recent decision of Marinakis v Karipidis and Others, the King’s Bench Division ruled on critical procedural and substantive issues concerning a claimant’s ability to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction, as well as the standards required to satisfy the merits and forum tests in defamation and unlawful means conspiracy claims.
This case serves as a significant reminder of the intricacies involved when parties seek to litigate in the English Courts against defendants located outside the jurisdiction.
Marinakis v Karipidis and Others
Background to the dispute
The Claimant, Mr. Marinakis, issued defamation claims against multiple defendants alleging involvement in a “smear campaign” that ran from November 2023 to March 2024. According to the Claimant, this campaign involved defamatory publications made across a variety of platforms, including a website, YouTube, Twitter, and mobile billboards.
The Claimant asserted that the First and Second Defendants were primarily responsible for organising and financing the campaign, while the Third and Fourth Defendants played significant roles in facilitating its creation and execution, including making payments. In essence, the Claimant contended that the defendants were all part of a coordinated effort to harm his reputation.
The Claimant sought permission to serve the Defendants out of the jurisdiction and Senior Master Cook granted that application. However, the Defendants challenged the decision, arguing that the Claimant did not meet the necessary legal requirements for service out of the jurisdiction, including the “Merits Test” and the “Forum Test”.
Legal framework
At the heart of the case are the rules set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), particularly CPR 6.36 and Practice Direction 6B, which governs the service of a claim form outside the jurisdiction.
To successfully serve proceedings outside the jurisdiction, there must be a real prospect of success for the claim. The claimant must show that their case is not frivolous or vexatious, and there is a legitimate basis for pursuing the claim.
The claimant also needed to establish that England and Wales were the appropriate forum for the case, and that it was in the interests of justice to hear the case here.
Additionally, the Defamation Act 2013, particularly Section 9, played a role in determining whether England and Wales were the appropriate forum for defamation claims, particularly if the publication has caused or is likely to cause significant harm to the claimant’s reputation within the jurisdiction. Section 9(2) confirms:
“A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement.”
Submissions and arguments
The Defendants’ arguments:
The First and Second Defendants argued that the Claimant’s case failed the merits test, contending that the defamation claims could not satisfy the serious harm threshold. They also raised potential defences of truth and public interest.
The Third and Fourth Defendants maintained that they were not significantly involved in the publishing of defamatory statements or in the alleged conspiracy, and that the Claimant’s case lacked merit against them.
The Claimant’s position:
The Claimant asserted that the defamation claims had a real prospect of success, particularly with regard to the First, Third and Fourth Defendants. They argued that the defamatory publications had caused harm within the jurisdiction.
Additionally, the Claimant disputed allegations of non-disclosure, claiming that full and frank disclosure was made in the original application.
Decision
The Court carefully analysed the allegations, evidence and the legal standards in play. Here is a breakdown of the key points from the decision.
Merits test:
The Court found that the Claimant’s claims against the First, Third and Fourth Defendants satisfied the merits test. The pleaded case, bolstered by evidence, provided a real prospect of success on the grounds of defamation and unlawful means conspiracy. The Court found that these defendants were likely involved in the smear campaign and that the Claimant’s reputation had been harmed in England and Wales, making the jurisdiction appropriate for the claim.
However, the Court concluded that the Claimant’s case against the Second Defendant was weak. The Second Defendant was alleged to have only made two payments at the direction of the First Defendant, which the court found insufficient to establish liability for defamation or conspiracy.
Forum test:
The Court ruled that England and Wales was the appropriate forum for the claims against the First, Third and Fourth Defendants as the publications had caused damage to the Claimant’s reputation within the jurisdiction.
The Second Defendant’s application to set aside the order for service out of jurisdiction was granted due to the insufficient merits of the case against them.
The applications of the First, Third and Fourth Defendants were dismissed, allowing the Claimant to proceed with his claims against them.
The Claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the initial application due to the non-disclosure.
In terms of costs, the Court provisionally directed no order as to costs between the Claimant and the First and Second Defendants. However, the Claimant was awarded 40% of the costs from the Third and Fourth Defendants.
Comment
The case of Marinakis v Karipidis and Others offers important lessons in procedural fairness, the requirements for service out of jurisdiction and the standard for defamation claims in England and Wales. While the Claimant succeeded in having his claims proceed against certain defendants, the Court made it clear that service out is not a given and that a claimant must meet both the merits and forum tests. Additionally, the case underscores the importance of full and frank disclosure in any jurisdictional application, as failure to adhere to this duty can result in serious consequences, including cost penalties.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is a Trainee Solicitor in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, please contact Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us