Court of Appeal Rules on Blogger Libel and Contempt Case

Introduction

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in the case of Smith vs Kirkegaard, a complex legal battle involving allegations of libel and contempt of court between two bloggers.

The case revolved around a series of online publications and the subsequent legal actions taken by both parties. The judgment, delivered by Lord Justice Dingemans, provides crucial insights into the enforcement of court orders and the jurisdictional challenges in contempt proceedings.

Background

Oliver Smith and Emil Kirkegaard, both bloggers, had a history of online disagreements. On 11 January 2018, Smith published a tweet referring to Kirkegaard. This was followed by a blog post by a third party, Anatoly Karlin, on 3 February 2018, which criticized Smith's writings and attracted numerous comments, including three defamatory posts by Smith accusing Kirkegaard of supporting child rape or paedophilia.

On 7 December 2018, Kirkegaard initiated a libel claim against Smith for these publications. Kirkegaard provided an address in Denmark on the claim form, which Smith later contested, alleging that Kirkegaard was actually residing in the USA at the time.

High Court Proceedings

The case saw a trial of preliminary issues on 26 November 2019 before Mr Justice Julian Knowles, who found the posts to be expressions of opinion defamatory of Kirkegaard. An order was made for Kirkegaard to pay half of Smith's costs, summarily assessed at £13,500, which Kirkegaard failed to pay. A final costs certificate was issued on 28 September 2021 for £26,668.43, which Kirkegaard also did not pay.

Smith made various attempts to enforce the costs order, including initiating proceedings in Denmark and Germany, but faced significant challenges due to Kirkegaard's evasive actions.

Contempt Application

On 23 June 2023, Smith filed a contempt application against Kirkegaard for making a false statement regarding his address and failing to pay the costs orders. The High Court dismissed the application on 3 October 2023, citing Smith's failure to comply with procedural requirements and the perceived hopelessness of the application due to jurisdictional issues.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Smith appealed the decision, and Lord Justice Warby granted permission to appeal on 14 March 2024. The Court of Appeal considered several key issues, including the validity of alternative service methods, the court's jurisdiction over Kirkegaard, and the enforceability of costs orders through contempt proceedings.

Judgment

In a detailed judgment, Lord Justice Dingemans concluded that the High Court erred in dismissing the contempt application on the grounds of hopelessness. The Court of Appeal found that alternative service methods, such as email and social media, could be valid in this case due to Kirkegaard's evasive actions. The court also confirmed its jurisdiction over Kirkegaard, who had invoked the court's jurisdiction by initiating the libel proceedings.

However, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that non-payment of costs orders could not be enforced through contempt proceedings, as per the Debtors Act 1869. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring compliance with court orders and the integrity of statements made in court documents.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal allowed Smith's appeal, granting relief from sanctions and remitting the case for further directions. The judgment underscores the complexities of enforcing court orders in cross-border disputes and the evolving nature of online defamation law.

This case sets a significant precedent for legal professionals dealing with online defamation, enforcement of court orders, and jurisdictional challenges in contempt proceedings.

Legal representatives: Oliver Smith in person. Emil Kirkegaard did not appear and was unrepresented.

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

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Civ 698