![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions >> Soriano v Societe D'Exploitation De L'Hebdomadaire Le Point (Sebdo) & Anor [2022] EWHC 3370 (KB) (23 December 2022) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2022/3370.html Cite as: [2022] EWHC 3370 (KB) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
WALTER SORIANO |
Claimant |
|
- and – |
||
(1) SOCIETE D'EXPLOITATION DE L'HEBDOMADAIRE LE POINT (SEBDO) (2) MARC LEPLONGEON |
Defendants |
____________________
Jonathan Price (Ince Gordon Dadds LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 8 December 2022
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Hill DBE:
Introduction
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]).
The law
"(1) The court may make an order for specific disclosure or specific inspection.
(2) An order for specific disclosure is an order that a party must do one or more of the following things –
(a) disclose documents or classes of documents specified in the order;
(b) carry out a search to the extent stated in the order;
(c) disclose any documents located as a result of that search
"In deciding whether or not to make an order for specific disclosure the court will take into account all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the overriding objective described in Part 1. But if the party concludes that the party from whom specific disclosure is sought has failed adequately to comply with the obligations imposed by an order for disclosure (whether by failing to make a sufficient search for documents or otherwise) the court will usually make such order as is necessary to ensure that those obligations are complied with.
(i) whether the party seeking the disclosure has made a prima facie case that the documents sought are relevant to a pleaded issue between the parties (i.e. whether they are likely to support the applicant's case or adversely affect the respondent's case); and
(ii) whether an order is in accordance with the overriding objective and is, in all the circumstances, proportionate.
The application dated 14 January 2022
Paragraph 1(a): search terms
(i) The Amended Defence at [30]-[32] asserts that (a) in around November 2018 the Second Defendant became interested in the Claimant whilst investigating a legal dispute between Dimitri Rybolovlev and Yves Bouvier; (b) the Second Defendant was made aware that the Claimant had been employed by Mr Rybolovlev; (c) he obtained documents which demonstrated the Claimant's involvement in that case; and (d) he was informed by two sources that the Claimant's company USG Security had been paid by Mr Rybolovlev to find compromising information about Mr Bouvier.
(ii) The Defence at [31] asserts that during the course of his investigation, the Second Defendant became aware that both Mr Rybolovlev and Mr Bouvier had employed the services of private intelligence operatives, two of whom were Ron Wahid and Bernard Squarcini.
(iii) While Olivier Jude is not cited in the Amended Defence, he is the police officer conducting the investigation into the Rybolovlev/Bouvier dispute and has been mentioned briefly in the Defendants' disclosure.
(i) The Claimant has made out a prima facie case that the documents sought are relevant to the public interest defence which is a fact-sensitive and heavily disputed issue between the parties.
(ii) The material sought is likely to support or adversely affect the parties' respective cases on this issue.
(iii) A specific disclosure order in respect of this material is therefore necessary to ensure that the Defendants' disclosure obligations under the CPR are fully complied with.
(iv) The Claimant has taken various steps to ensure that the order sought is, in all the circumstances, proportionate. As detailed above, these steps comprise ensuring that the documents sought relate to a relatively narrow and justifiable time-period, modifying the obligations on the First Defendant and revising the search terms so as to reduce the likely number of results returned.
(v) The combined effect of these steps should mean that the results from the Second Defendant's searches will be focussed and yield relevant documents.
(vi) All the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the overriding objective, militate in favour of the order being granted.
Paragraph 1(b): specific emails
Paragraph 3 of the draft order
The application dated 26 October 2022
Conclusion