In this blog post, Alex Carington summarises a recent decision of Richard Spearman KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the King’s Bench Division) which represents the latest instalment in the ongoing libel proceedings brought by Evangelos Marinakis, owner of Nottingham Forest FC, against his rival Greek football magnate Irini Karipidis.

Aside from the inevitable mainstream appeal of any high-profile defamation suit, this blog post will be of particular interest to cross-border professional as it provides a tidy summary of the principles applicable in any application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, (or to set aside such permission).

Marinakis v Karipidis & Ors [2025] EWHC 13 (KB): service out in a libel action

This was a long judgment by Deputy Judge Spearman KC on applications by the four defendants to set aside an order granting the Claimant permission to serve outside of the jurisdiction. The proceedings in this case seem set to be acrimonious (spoiler) and this played out in the hotly-fought application hearing.

The billionaire Claimant, through his companies, is the majority owner and chairman of Nottingham Forest Football Club. He also has a number of other commercial interests in the UK and internationally, particularly in shipping. The claim he brings is for libel and unlawful means conspiracy concerning statements made about him in articles on a UK domain website, YouTube, X, and mobile billboards driven around Nottingham. The statements on the latter 3 all referred to the UK website.

The First Director was said to be a director of the Second Defendant, a limited company in Cyprus. The Third Defendant is a political consultant in Israel and founder and CEO of the Fourth Defendant which operates as a consultancy on political advocacy strategies.

There was no real dispute on the legal principles. The judgment neatly summarises the applicable law on service outside of the jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens at paragraphs 34 to 40, following the established principles set out in Soriano, Spiliada and Brownlie. The Court can only give permission to serve outside of the jurisdiction if 3 conditions are met:

  1. The claim falls within one of the “gateways” set out in CPR PD 6B (the “Gateway Requirement”);
  2. The claim has a real as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success (the “Merits Test”);
  3. The Court is satisfied that England and Wales is the proper place in which to bring the claim (the “Forum Test”);

The Court also summarised the core elements of a cause of action in libel and the tort of conspiracy (paras 41 to 44) as well as some particular jurisdictional considerations for actions in defamation actions (paras 45 to 47) and the law concerning the duty to make full and frank disclosure (paras 48 to 54).

The Gateway Requirement

The Gateways relied on by the Claimant were those set out in paragraph 3.1(2) and (9) of CPR Practice Direction 6B:

“(2) A claim is made for an injunction ordering the defendant to do or refrain from doing an act within the jurisdiction. […]

(9) A claim is made in tort where –
(a) damage was sustained, or will be sustained, within the jurisdiction;
(b) damage which has been or will be sustained results from an act committed, or likely to be committed, with the jurisdiction; or
(c) the claim is governed by the law of England and Wales.”

None of the Defendants contended that the claim did not satisfy the Gateway Requirement and so this condition was met (paras 55-56).

The Merits Test

All of the Defendants sought to argue that the claim had no real prospects of success such that the Merits Test was not satisfied.

The Court rejected these assertions for all of the Defendants save for the Second Defendant where the Court considered the claim really focussed on the actions of the First Defendant, who was a director of the Second Defendant, rather than any acts by the Second Defendant itself. Given the huge amount of time, money and resources the Claimant had expended in investigating the sources of the defamatory statements, the Court was not convinced much more material would come to light during disclosure to strengthen any claim against the Second Defendant and so on this basis the claim against the Second Defendant did not meet the Merits Test (paras 57 to 122).

The Forum Test

Only the First and Defendants sought to argue that England & Wales was not the appropriate jurisdiction. It is consideration of this third condition which may be of general interest to cross-border practitioners in terms of the factors considered relevant by the Court in determining whether England and Wales was the appropriate forum.

The Court decided that England and Wales was the appropriate forum and relied on the factors listed at para 125 (essentially a wholesale adoption of the Claimant’s submissions on the issue) which included:

  1. The statements complained of were published within the jurisdiction.
  2. The statements complained of caused reputational damage within the jurisdiction.
  3. The two factors above meant the jurisdiction had the most real and substantial connection to the libel and unlawful means conspiracy actions.
  4. There was no other suitable forum as the defendants were all domiciled in different jurisdictions.
  5. The publications complained of were published in English and were targeted to an English audience.
  6. Even if the place of commission of the unlawful means conspiracy was outside the jurisdiction, this was outweighed by other factors.
  7. It was impossible to say whether the bulk of witness evidence would come from witnesses from any one jurisdiction and evidence would potentially involve witnesses from Greece, Russia, Israel and the USA (the number of such witnesses being unknown).

The Court also decided that the allegations concerning a failure to comply with full and frank disclosure on the permission to serve out application were largely unfounded save that the way in which the case was presented gave the impression that it was of equal or similar strength against each Defendant, which failed to highlight the narrow nature of the case against the Second Defendant (paras 127-152). For this, the Court decided the appropriate sanction was to deprive the Claimant of his costs of the original ex parte application for permission to serve out and to reduce the costs payable by the unsuccessful Defendants in respect of their applications to set aside permission (paras 153-154).

Conclusion

Whilst this claim is for libel and unlawful means conspiracy, it provides a pithy summary of the 3 conditions to be satisfied for permission to serve out and it is helpful to see the weighing up of factors by the Court when determining that England and Wales was the appropriate forum.

It is also a salutary reminder of the high bar imposed by the duty to provide full and frank disclosure when making an application for permission to serve out and the need to present the case against the defendants fairly. Even if a failure to do this does not lead to permission being withdrawn, it can lead to heavy costs consequences, as was the case here.

This post was written by Alex Carington.