Andrew Edward McCarthy v Graham Brian Proctor
[2024] EWHC 684 (Ch)
Matthew Thomas Parish v Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
6 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2301 (KB)
High Court
A lawyer sued Wikipedia for libel in the UK over a page about his conviction in Switzerland. The UK court said the case should be in Switzerland because that's where the lawyer mostly lives and where the crime happened. The court also said the lawyer didn't tell the truth about where he lives and that he waited too long to sue.
Key Facts
- •Matthew Parish (Claimant) sued Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (Defendant) for libel over a Wikipedia article about his forgery conviction in Switzerland.
- •The Defendant applied to set aside an order granting the Claimant permission to serve the Defendant out of the jurisdiction.
- •The Claimant, a British citizen, claimed residence in England but had lived and worked abroad extensively for many years, primarily in Switzerland.
- •The libel concerned the Claimant's Swiss forgery conviction and sentence.
- •The Defendant argued the claim had no real prospect of success, England wasn't the most appropriate forum, and the Claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure.
- •The Claimant's application to serve out of the jurisdiction was made without notice to the Defendant but with courtesy copy provided.
Legal Principles
Permission to serve a claim outside the jurisdiction requires: (1) the claim falls within a CPR PD 6B gateway; (2) a real prospect of success; (3) England and Wales is the proper forum.
Soriano v Forensic News LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 1952
In defamation cases against non-UK domiciled defendants, England and Wales must be clearly the most appropriate forum considering all places of publication.
Defamation Act 2013, section 9
Applicants for permission to serve outside the jurisdiction have a duty of full and frank disclosure of material facts.
Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 545 (QB)
Defamation actions must be commenced within one year of publication, subject to equitable exceptions.
Limitation Act 1980, sections 4A and 32A
The 'single publication rule' in the Defamation Act 2013 prevents multiple actions for substantially the same statement after the first publication.
Defamation Act 2013, section 8
Outcomes
The order granting permission to serve the Defendant out of the jurisdiction was set aside.
The Claimant failed the Forum Test (England was not clearly the most appropriate forum), committed egregious breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure, and had no real prospect of defeating a limitation defence.
The claim was dismissed.
The court lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to meet the requirements for service out of the jurisdiction.