Smith vs Kirkegaard

This case involved an appeal by Oliver Smith against an order refusing to grant relief from sanction in contempt proceedings against Emil Kirkegaard.

TLDR:

• Oliver Smith appealed against the refusal to grant relief from sanction in contempt proceedings.
• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, addressing issues of service and jurisdiction.
• The case involved allegations of false statements and non-payment of costs.

Oliver Smith and Emil Kirkegaard are both bloggers who have had disagreements online. The dispute began when Smith published a tweet and blog posts describing Kirkegaard as a supporter of child rape or paedophilia. Kirkegaard subsequently brought a libel claim against Smith, which was later discontinued.

Smith made a contempt application alleging that Kirkegaard provided a false address on the claim form and failed to pay costs orders. The High Court dismissed the application due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and issues with service.

Smith appealed, arguing that the court should have allowed alternative service methods and that Kirkegaard had submitted to the court's jurisdiction by initiating the libel proceedings. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that alternative service might be appropriate given Kirkegaard's efforts to avoid service.

The Court of Appeal also addressed the issue of whether non-payment of costs could be enforced through contempt proceedings. It concluded that while non-payment might be a contempt, it could not be enforced by imprisonment under the Debtors Act 1869.

The Court of Appeal granted Smith relief from sanctions, allowing the contempt proceedings to continue on the basis of the false address allegation. The case was remitted to the High Court for further directions.

Legal representatives: Oliver Smith in person.

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Asplin, and Lord Justice Dingemans.

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Civ 698