Re: Libel tourism
The issue which both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had to examine was not where the claimant (Wright) was based, but where the defendant was. This was due to section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 which says: "9. Action against a person not domiciled in the UK or a Member State etc
(1) This section applies to an action for defamation against a person who is not domiciled—
(a) in the United Kingdom;
(b) in another Member State; or
(c) in a state which is for the time being a contracting party to the Lugano Convention.
(2) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement." As Roger Ver has virtually no connection with England and Wales or the EU, the outcome is unsurprising.