Key Facts
- •Oliver Smith (appellant) and Emil Kirkegaard (respondent), both bloggers, had a dispute.
- •Kirkegaard sued Smith for libel in 2018, providing a Danish address.
- •Smith alleged Kirkegaard lived in the USA and wasn't a data scientist, impacting cost security.
- •Preliminary issues trial in 2019 found the posts were defamatory opinions.
- •Kirkegaard owed Smith £26,668.43 in costs, but didn't pay, prompting various enforcement attempts by Smith.
- •Smith (acting in person) made a contempt application alleging false statements and non-payment of costs.
- •The judge dismissed the contempt application due to Smith's procedural failures.
- •Smith appealed, arguing the judge erred on service, jurisdiction, and enforceability of costs via contempt.
- •Kirkegaard didn't appear in the appeal.
Legal Principles
Alternative service may be ordered in contempt applications if good reason exists (CPR 6.15(1)).
CPR 6.15(1), Field v Vecchio [2022] EWHC 1118 (Ch)
CPR 81.4 has extraterritorial effect; a foreign national invoking the court's jurisdiction is subject to its contempt jurisdiction for incidental matters (Dar Al Arkan v Al Refai [2014] EWCA Civ 715; Vik v Deutsche Bank AG [2018] EWCA Civ 2011).
CPR 81.4, Dar Al Arkan v Al Refai [2014] EWCA Civ 715, Vik v Deutsche Bank AG [2018] EWCA Civ 2011
In England and Wales, committal for non-payment of costs is generally prohibited by the Debtors Act 1869, except under specific circumstances not applicable here.
Debtors Act 1869, sections 4 and 5, CPR 81.4, Hussain v Vaswani [2020] EWCA Civ 1216
A false statement in a statement of truth can be contempt (CPR 32.14), even if substantive proceedings are never issued (Jet 2 Holidays Ltd v Hughes [2019] EWCA Civ 1858).
CPR 32.14, Jet 2 Holidays Ltd v Hughes [2019] EWCA Civ 1858
Relief from sanctions is determined using the Denton test: seriousness of breach, reason for breach, and just outcome (Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906).
Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The judge wrongly dismissed the contempt application based on a flawed assessment of service and jurisdiction. While non-payment of costs isn't grounds for committal, the false statement of address is.
Smith granted relief from sanctions.
Applying the Denton test, the court found that although Smith's breaches were serious, the reasons were understandable, and justice required granting relief given the potential for alternative service and the possibility of contempt based on the false address.
Matter remitted to the High Court for determination of alternative service and further directions.
To allow the court to consider alternative service and further progress on the contempt application based on the false address.