1. The court should proceed in the absence of the defendant. Although she had written a letter setting our her difficulties in dealing with the case she had not asked for an adjournment; she had not applied for default judgment to be set aside; and she had not served a witness statement backed by a statement of truth. None of the points she made in her letter of 19 June (which are addressed in detail in the judgment) persuaded the court that she is or had been deprived of a fair opportunity to contest the claim.
2.It was not necessary or appropriate to rule on the actual meanings of the words complained of which were all plainly arguable. CPR 12.11(1) provides that where a claimant makes an application for default judgment, judgment shall be entered on the claim in the statement of case. Whilst, in some cases, there may need to be an assessment of the merits, it was not necessary here.
3. The appropriate award to compensate for the injury to reputation, and to feelings, and to ensure adequate vindication in respect of what were very serious allegations was £110,000. Publication had been assessed in the earlier judgment to be around 60,000 in this jurisdiction for the first, second and third publications. C, a Russian senator, had a substantial and valuable reputation here. He had owned a house here and was well known within the large Russian community. He was also prominent in the Jewish community. He was planning to relocate his family to London over the next 2 years. His divorce had been the subject of a highly publicised ruling by the Family Division in 2012.
3. Even though there were difficulties with the granting of an injunction against an individual overseas in circumstances where she had decided not to engage with the process, it was appropriate here where publication had continued with no apparent attempt by D to stop it, there had been an assertion by D that what she said was true, and she had expressed her utmost respect for the English court.