Key takeaways
Jurisdiction depends on domicile or clear UK nexus
Courts act only where England and Wales is most appropriate.
Claimants must meet ‘good arguable case’ standard
A solid evidential basis is essential to establish jurisdiction.
Weak jurisdiction arguments risk early case failure
Missteps on evidence or residence can be decisive and costly.
The court’s jurisdiction to hear defamation claims
In Baig -v- Hassan [2026] EWHC 11 (KB), the High Court considered section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 and the standard of proof in a contested application on the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to hear a defamation claim issued about statements made by a Pakistani pop star on a television broadcast in Pakistan.
The courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear and determine defamation claims against defendants domiciled in the UK. An individual is regarded as domiciled in the UK if they are resident in the UK and the nature and circumstances of their residence indicate that they have a substantial connection with the UK.
If the defendant is not domiciled in the UK, the court will only have jurisdiction if it 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 (Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013). The standard of proof is the 'good arguable case' test. There are three limbs to the 'good arguable case' test, the first being a plausible evidential basis for the jurisdictional gateway.
Background to the case
In August 2021, Mr Zoheb Hassan, a Pakistani pop star, made statements about Mr Ishtiaq Baig, his former brother-in-law, in interviews broadcast on Pakistani television channels. The statements concerned the alleged treatment by Mr Baig of Mr Hassan’s late sister.
In September 2021, Mr Baig brought a libel action against Mr Hassan in Pakistan claiming damages of 1 billion rupees (£2.7M). He successfully obtained an interim injunction and the case is ongoing.
In August 2022, Mr Baig brought a defamation claim against Mr Hassan in the courts of England and Wales. Mr Hassan applied to set aside the claim form in January 2023, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under Section 9 (in addition to arguments on service). Both parties relied on written evidence from multiple witnesses.
The application was heard by Master Dagnall. While Mr Hassan required Mr Baig’s witnesses to attend for cross-examination, Mr Baig did not seek to cross-examine any of Mr Hassan’s witnesses. The Master concluded that the court had no jurisdiction because:
Mr Hassan was not domiciled in the UK at the relevant time;
England and Wales was not clearly the most appropriate place to bring the action.
The Master took the view that he should generally accept Mr Hassan’s evidence where it was not contradicted by other material noting that there had been no real attempt to challenge it by counter-evidence and no request to cross-examine Mr Hassan’s witnesses.
Mr Baig appealed the decision. He argued that Master Dagnall wrongly concluded that Mr Hassan was not resident in the UK at the relevant time by placing too much reliance on the lack of cross-examination of his witnesses and by failing to properly apply the good arguable cast test.
High Court decision
The High Court judge dismissed the appeal; the Master accepted the dangers of unchallenged evidence and so did not materially rely on the absence of cross-examination against Mr Baig. Further, he did not misapply the good arguable case test. The judge upheld the Master’s findings that Mr Hassan was not resident in the UK when served with the court papers and that Mr Baig had not produced a plausible evidential basis in favour of the court accepting jurisdiction. Therefore, Mr Baig did not satisfy the first limb of the 'good arguable case' test.
