Walter Soriano v Societe D’Exploitation De L’Hebdomadaire Le Point (Sebdo) & Anor.
December 23, 2022
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE HILL DBE
Areas of Law
- Media Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
December 23, 2022
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court judgment by Mrs Justice Hill DBE concerns two specific disclosure applications in an English libel action brought by a British-Israeli businessman against the French publisher of Le Point and its journalist. The article, published online on 21 June 2019, alleged grounds to investigate ties to Russian election interference and surveillance of Israeli police. The court notes central trial issues of the s.4 Defamation Act 2013 public interest defence and serious harm. On the January 2022 application, the court orders targeted searches using additional terms, including on the journalists mobile devices, within the pre-publication timeframe, finding them proportionate and directly relevant to testing the objective reasonableness of the public interest defence. On the October 2022 application, the court orders disclosure of identities and addresses of UK-based subscribers who accessed the article, holding this relevant to serious harm and manageable under data protection law through redactions and the CPR implied undertaking.
By two applications dated 14 January 2022 and 26 October 2022 the Claimant seeks specific disclosure from the Defendants.
The Claimant is a British-Israeli businessman, domiciled in England.
The First Defendant is the publisher of Le Point, a weekly French-language political and news magazine. Le Point is published in print and online. The Second Defendant was a journalist employed by the First Defendant.
On 21 June 2019 the First Defendant published an article on the Le Point website about the Claimant which had been written by the Second Defendant, entitled ‘ United States: Israeli agent targeted by Russian interference investigation ’ (“the article”).
On 17 July 2019 the Claimant issued this claim for libel arising out of the publication of the article.
The application dated 14 January 2022 seeks an order requiring the Defendants to conduct further searches for documents by reference to specific terms and to conduct various other specific searches. It was supported by a witness statement from the Claimant’s solicitor, Shlomo Rechtschaffen (“Rechtschaffen 2”). This was responded to by a witness statement from the Defendant’s solicitor, Gareth Jones (“Jones 3”), to which Mr Rechtschaffen replied with a further statement (“Rechtschaffen 4”).
The application dated 26 October 2022 seeks information about those of the First Defendant’s subscribers who have accessed the article within England and Wales. This was supported by a bundle of relevant correspondence between the parties.
The procedural history
“The Claimant is a spy or a spook and there are grounds to investigate whether he has directly or indirectly used surveillance, military methods or data interception technology in his work; whether he was involved in the surveillance of police officers investigating President Netanyahu; and whether he was involved in Russia’s attempt to interfere in the 2016 election in the USA” (see [2020] EWHC 3121 (QB) at [30]).
On 22 January 2021 the Defendants filed their Defence.
On 24 March 2021 the Claimant filed a Reply.
On 14 October 2021 a Case Management Conference was held at which standard disclosure was ordered. The Defendants have since made standard disclosure.
On 8 July 2022 Collins Rice J dismissed the Defendants’ application dated 23 February 2022 for strike out and/or summary judgment. She held that the Claimant’s pleaded claim of serious harm was defective in that it was inconsistent with Nicol J’s meaning judgment. She permitted the Claima