Realtid case: UK court asked to consider "serious harm"

For our report on the first day of these hearings, see here.

Proceedings resumed this morning in the case of Kumlin and another v Jonsson and others, which is considering if a suit against a Swedish publication for alleged libel should be held in London under English law.

After yesterday's defence submissions, counsel for the prosecution, Mr Price opened with a complaint about the length of the defence written "skeleton argument," saying it was over 51 pages. The judge, Mr Justice Kowles, replied that this was "a bit of a stable door argument," since the defence had already made its submissions and asked the barrister to move on.

Price then went on to the issue of "serious harm," something a claimant has to prove he or she has suffered for a libel claim to succeed. He argued that his client should not be compelled to bring in witnesses to show people believed the allegations in the articles in question, saying the court should be able to draw an inference from a letter in evidence showing a financial advisory company cancelling a contract with his clients after the pieces were published.

"We have a negative change of position after publication, that should be enough," he said.

The barrister then submitted a number of legal precedents to argue that the claimants could apply for damages for losses incurred by subsidiary companies that they say were caused by the articles published by Realtid.

Price then moved onto the specific losses he said were caused. He referenced the proposed sale of two Spanish solar power plants that were expected to make a large profit for the group of around €40m. This, he said, was derailed by the cancellation of the relationship by the third party company giving financial advice.

The judge then asked if any new advisors had been employed, Price said no, and told the court one of the plants had been sold, but for significantly less than was expected.

The claimant's counsel then responded to yesterday's defence arguments that the case should not be held in a UK court as London was not the complainers "centre of interest." Mr Price said the subsidiary company that is the second complainant in this case, is incorporated and based in London and more than half its projects were in England and Wales.

He did concede that "we have a bit more work to do," on the status of the first complainant, Mr Kunas. He argued that Kunas was however on the electoral register and paid council tax on his property in London.

The hearing was then paused as the Microsoft Teams application being used presented a number of participants, including the judge, with a message saying "this meeting has gone too long."

When proceedings resumed Mr Rice told the court he had concluded his submissions, and Mr Callus for the defence then rose to respond.

He began by questioning the claimants' claim that it was the publication of the articles in London that had an impact, noting that emails from the third party that later cancelled its contract suggested the information was passed by its Oslo office to the Singapore head office. Hence, he argued, the case should be held in Sweden, under Swedish law, not London.

He also argued that legal precedent showed that a company could not sue for damages incurred by its shareholders, as it would be a matter for the shareholders themselves to do this.

He also noted that website analysis showed only four people had read the articles in question in the last four months, which cast doubt on the claimant's assertion that there was ongoing damage from them.

He also noted that Mr Kumlin was "A very persuasive man, he could sell snakeskin shoes to a snake." Adding that people continued to do business with him after the articles were published, and no English language news outlets had picked up the story adding, "it's not even on the Google rankings for search."

Mr Cunnas then ended his submission and Mr Justice Knowles said he would deliver his decision in writing in due course.

Court then adjourned.