## Facts

- Vladimir Ivanovich Telnikoff, an English citizen and journalist, published a commentary in a London newspaper criticizing the BBC Russian Service’s recruiting practices and ethnic composition.
- Vladimir Matusevitch, a Maryland resident and journalist, responded with a letter to the editor that Telnikoff alleged portrayed him as racist, anti-Semitic, and as advocating discriminatory employment practices.
- Telnikoff sued Matusevitch for libel in the High Court of Justice in London and obtained a money judgment after a jury verdict.
- The English judgment was entered under defamation rules that presumed defamatory statements false and placed the burden on the defendant to prove defenses such as truth.
- Telnikoff attempted to enforce the English judgment in Maryland state court and also sought enforcement in the District of Columbia.
- Matusevitch filed a U.S. declaratory action seeking a ruling that the English judgment was unenforceable in the United States as contrary to free-speech protections and Maryland public policy.
- The federal appellate court certified to Maryland’s highest court whether Maryland law would recognize the English libel judgment or deny recognition on public-policy grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland, applying the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act and principles of comity, must refuse recognition of an English libel money judgment as repugnant to Maryland public policy.
2. Whether material differences between English defamation standards and U.S./Maryland constitutional protections for speech in public debate make recognition improper.

## Decision

- The Maryland Court of Appeals answered the certified question by holding that recognition of the English libel judgment should be denied as repugnant to Maryland public policy.
- The court reasoned that the English defamation framework materially conflicted with Maryland’s strong policy favoring freedom of speech and press, particularly in debate on public issues.
- The court emphasized the combined effect of English law’s presumption of falsity, the defendant’s burden to prove truth/defenses, and the absence of U.S.-style constitutional requirements such as proof of falsity and actual malice in appropriate contexts.
- A dissent argued the court should have declined to reach the state public-policy question as framed by the certification.

## Legal Principles

- Under Maryland’s Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, a foreign-country money judgment may be denied recognition if it is repugnant to Maryland public policy.
- Maryland public policy on defamation is informed by constitutional protections for speech and press, including heightened safeguards for commentary and criticism in matters of public concern.
- A foreign libel judgment is repugnant to Maryland public policy when the foreign law:
  - presumes falsity and shifts the burden to the defendant to prove truth or defenses, and
  - omits protections required in U.S. defamation law for public debate (including, in appropriate cases, plaintiff proof of falsity and actual malice), such that enforcement would chill protected expression.
- The refusal to recognize was tied to the circumstances and standards applied in the particular defamation judgment, not a categorical rule against all foreign defamation judgments.

## Conclusion

Maryland refused to recognize an English libel money judgment because the judgment was rendered under defamation standards materially less protective of speech than those reflected in Maryland’s constitutional public policy, and enforcement would risk chilling public debate.


Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 561, 702 A.2d 230 (Md. 1997)