Striking out both claims against all defendants,
1. The claim against the police woman for statements in an interview in the course of her duties was a case of slander occurring solely within Norway for which s. 2(5)(3) of the Lugano Convention 2007 which governed jurisdiction in civil claims between the EU and Norway did not grant jurisdiction to the English court and which, in any event, was barred by limitation and in part, non-actionable in slander.
2. Even if the police woman had somehow caused publication of the article, there was insufficient evidence of publication of the article (a meagre number of search engine hits of the Norwegian version of the article on the various search engines).
3. Publication/republication of the article was unforeseeable: the article was buried deep within the website archive and the only means of a translation into English was provided by a third party, Google—something neither defendant was responsible for.
4. The first claim was an abuse of process. Adopting a broad merits-based approach, publication was stale and highly technical, the underlying factual events dated back to the 1990s and C himself published the article on his own website, albeit without his name. The underlying issues had been litigated In Norway and been subject to two appeals, and applications for investigations of the police woman by the Nowegian police authorities. The English court was entitled to have regard to two relevant convictions of C for harassment in Norway. In spite of C’s explanations, evidence of C’s circulation of highly personal allegations against a Norwegian woman and harassing voicemails to the police woman were before the court. The claim was not a proper pursuit of vindication of reputation.
5. As a result of striking out the claim against the police woman, the claim against her employer failed. C had not satisfied the Court that the claim was not one to which the immunity of states applied, the Ministry being a department of the Norwegian state.