## Facts

- Elena Baturina, a Russian businesswoman and wife of Moscow's then-mayor Yuri Luzhkov, brought a defamation claim against The Times.
- In 2008, The Times published an article about alleged corruption involving Russian officials, referring to the mayor's wife as a wealthy businesswoman with real estate interests but did not explicitly name Baturina.
- Baturina asserted the article implied her involvement in corrupt activities and contained sufficient detail that knowledgeable readers would identify her.
- The Times argued the article neither named Baturina nor was intended to defame her.

## Issues

1. Whether the article published by The Times met the identification requirement for defamation by containing sufficient details to refer to Baturina.
2. Whether a publisher can be held liable for defamation even where there was no intent or knowledge of the defamatory nature of the statements.
3. Whether the principle of strict liability applies regardless of the publisher's intent in UK defamation law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the article identified Baturina by referring to her as the mayor's wife and describing her business activity, making it possible for readers to recognize her.
- The court confirmed liability for defamation arises irrespective of the publisher's intent or knowledge; strict liability applies if the statement is defamatory and identifies the claimant.
- The court emphasized that the test for identification is objective, not dependent on the publisher's intention or awareness.

## Legal Principles

- UK defamation law imposes strict liability: publishers are liable if statements are defamatory and identify the claimant, regardless of intent or knowledge.
- The identification test is met where a statement, directly or indirectly, provides sufficient information for a reasonable person to recognize the claimant.
- Innocent publication does not preclude liability if the statement and identification elements are satisfied.
- The court distinguished the case from defences based on responsible journalism or public interest, which were not relevant here.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd confirmed that strict liability governs defamation: if a publication carries a defamatory meaning and identifies the claimant, publishers are liable even absent intent or explicit identification, underscoring the objective nature of the identification test in UK defamation law.


Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1526