The default position, as a foreign defendant, is not to voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of a US Court, even more so in these days of the ‘Trumped’ US justice system and especially not before a jury in MAGA-land. As to whether the Florida court has jurisdiction over the BBC, what matters more is not what the Florida court decides, but what an English court would decide under English private international law (PIL), were Trump to try to enforce a US judgment in England. If the BBC has not voluntarily submitted to the Florida court’s jurisdiction and has no ‘presence’ there, it’s likely that an English court would not recognise the Florida court’s ‘long arm’ jurisdiction. ‘Presence’ would probably turn on whether the BBC itself (and not a subsidiary or related entity) has an office within the Florida court’s jurisdiction, from which it conducts business. From a brief on-line search, the BBC doesn’t appear to.
With solid English legal advice on that issue, the BBC might decide to mount a challenge in Florida to the court’s jurisdiction, depending on advice from US lawyers. If it doesn’t, or does and loses, the BBC’s best option might well be to take no further part in the Florida ‘long arm’ proceedings and wait for the substantive outcome and for Trump to try to enforce a Florida judgment in England & Wales.
As there’s currently no civil judgments enforcement treaty between the USA and UK, Trump would need to issue fresh proceedings in England to seek to recover his ‘judgment debt’. The BBC’s possible defences would include lack of jurisdiction by the Florida court and that the damages were penal or punitive in nature.
The above only works if the defendant has no substantial assets in the USA (or in any other relevant country) which Trump could seize to satisfy a judgment in his favour. It seems unlikely that any such BBC US assets could have a value anywhere near the billions of dollars Trump claims.
It’s the sort of tactical decision I was regularly asked to advise on when practising as a litigation solicitor. No path is risk free, but I hope, as a license payer, that the BBC leans in favour of the approach I’ve outlined and that PR and political considerations come second to legal ones.
Once it has decided on its legal strategy, and begins to implement it, the BBC can - in parallel - try to negotiate a settlement with Trump in the very low millions of dollars (provided the BBC’s US lawyers confirm that it could not amount to submission to Florida jurisdiction). It won’t be easy, but time is on the BBC’s side. Trump has ‘high-balled’ the BBC, and the BBC should ‘low-ball’ him. Faced with the BBC declining to fight him in his ‘own back yard’, Trump will probably ‘scream and shout’. The louder he does, the better, as it would show that the BBC’s defence strategy was impacting on him.
Many thanks for these interesting comments. As a licence-payer myself, I'd prefer my payment to be spent on programmes rather than lawyers. But lawyers are certainly needed by the BBC to advise on how the issue can be resolved as cheaply as possible.
I was once advising, pro bono, a Portuguese man facing an outrageous attempt to remove his restaurant license. He’d received a suggestion of a barrister to use, whose profile alluded to licensing expertise (no, it wasn’t Suella Braverman 😊). A colleague who worked in the field told me there was only one barrister we should use and his fee would be double that of the first barrister. I strongly advised the restauranteur to pay the extra to get the best possible representation, given that his livelihood was on the line. He thought and then said: ‘In Portugal, we have a saying that it’s better to lose the ring, than the finger, so I accept your advice’. Happily, the chosen barrister was able to persuade the licensing authority that the local police constable, responsible for licensing matters, was over-zealous and that the license should be renewed.
When a litigant identifies a claim, whether for $5BN or $10BN, unless he is doing so in order to bully a defendant into a settlement (which ought to receive short shrift from a court), he must have some kind of belief in the genuineness of that claim.
In our jurisdiction, it would be the professional obligation of a claimant's lawyers to share such a belief.
It will be fascinating to see to what extent the shared common law roots of the Florida & E & W jurisdictions coincide.
The notion that Trump has some kind of belief in the genuineness of anything he claims would be viewed by some as misplaced. The roundness of the figures suggest he’s playing in a ballpark. Their size is intended to frighten and, possibly, to ‘anchor’ the figures for negotiation purposes. Maybe also to influence a jury. No doubt some explanation would be pleaded, but claims for general damages are often vague and exaggerated. At one time, it was possible for libel claimants in England to receive huge awards, such as c.£1 million awarded to ‘Kojak’ by a jury. Since then, juries are directed to make awards comparable with likely damages for personal injuries. That’s one of many reasons why Trump hasn’t issued his claim in England, clearly the appropriate forum.
I'm not a betting type of person but if I were, my money would go on any right thinking lawyers wholeheartedly agreeing with Trump's position. Naturally BBC will have chosen lawyers that reflect their own horrible belief system.
He has just claimed that the BBC invented his words “using AI” rather than editing what he actually said. This seems rather at odds with what is claimed in the documents filed so far.
By editing the BBC skilfully(?) juxtaposed statements as if one flowed from the other making it appear that he was extolling the mob to get into the capitol.
There's no doubt that it was GLOBALLY defamatory .
Had I mentioned that at all you might have a point. But my remark addresses what he has said post the filing of the action which greatly changes the nature of his claim. I think we can expect it to change many times before it gets anywhere near a court.
But nice to know you have already decided the case without seeing the BBC’s defence.
Really? You seem unaware that it is commonplace in civil cases for amendments to be made to claims, subject to court permission. However this is not (so far) so much a case of an amendment as the client contradicting his lawyers. Which if nothing else could make for interesting cross examination.
The default position, as a foreign defendant, is not to voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of a US Court, even more so in these days of the ‘Trumped’ US justice system and especially not before a jury in MAGA-land. As to whether the Florida court has jurisdiction over the BBC, what matters more is not what the Florida court decides, but what an English court would decide under English private international law (PIL), were Trump to try to enforce a US judgment in England. If the BBC has not voluntarily submitted to the Florida court’s jurisdiction and has no ‘presence’ there, it’s likely that an English court would not recognise the Florida court’s ‘long arm’ jurisdiction. ‘Presence’ would probably turn on whether the BBC itself (and not a subsidiary or related entity) has an office within the Florida court’s jurisdiction, from which it conducts business. From a brief on-line search, the BBC doesn’t appear to.
With solid English legal advice on that issue, the BBC might decide to mount a challenge in Florida to the court’s jurisdiction, depending on advice from US lawyers. If it doesn’t, or does and loses, the BBC’s best option might well be to take no further part in the Florida ‘long arm’ proceedings and wait for the substantive outcome and for Trump to try to enforce a Florida judgment in England & Wales.
As there’s currently no civil judgments enforcement treaty between the USA and UK, Trump would need to issue fresh proceedings in England to seek to recover his ‘judgment debt’. The BBC’s possible defences would include lack of jurisdiction by the Florida court and that the damages were penal or punitive in nature.
The above only works if the defendant has no substantial assets in the USA (or in any other relevant country) which Trump could seize to satisfy a judgment in his favour. It seems unlikely that any such BBC US assets could have a value anywhere near the billions of dollars Trump claims.
It’s the sort of tactical decision I was regularly asked to advise on when practising as a litigation solicitor. No path is risk free, but I hope, as a license payer, that the BBC leans in favour of the approach I’ve outlined and that PR and political considerations come second to legal ones.
Once it has decided on its legal strategy, and begins to implement it, the BBC can - in parallel - try to negotiate a settlement with Trump in the very low millions of dollars (provided the BBC’s US lawyers confirm that it could not amount to submission to Florida jurisdiction). It won’t be easy, but time is on the BBC’s side. Trump has ‘high-balled’ the BBC, and the BBC should ‘low-ball’ him. Faced with the BBC declining to fight him in his ‘own back yard’, Trump will probably ‘scream and shout’. The louder he does, the better, as it would show that the BBC’s defence strategy was impacting on him.
Many thanks for these interesting comments. As a licence-payer myself, I'd prefer my payment to be spent on programmes rather than lawyers. But lawyers are certainly needed by the BBC to advise on how the issue can be resolved as cheaply as possible.
I was once advising, pro bono, a Portuguese man facing an outrageous attempt to remove his restaurant license. He’d received a suggestion of a barrister to use, whose profile alluded to licensing expertise (no, it wasn’t Suella Braverman 😊). A colleague who worked in the field told me there was only one barrister we should use and his fee would be double that of the first barrister. I strongly advised the restauranteur to pay the extra to get the best possible representation, given that his livelihood was on the line. He thought and then said: ‘In Portugal, we have a saying that it’s better to lose the ring, than the finger, so I accept your advice’. Happily, the chosen barrister was able to persuade the licensing authority that the local police constable, responsible for licensing matters, was over-zealous and that the license should be renewed.
When a litigant identifies a claim, whether for $5BN or $10BN, unless he is doing so in order to bully a defendant into a settlement (which ought to receive short shrift from a court), he must have some kind of belief in the genuineness of that claim.
In our jurisdiction, it would be the professional obligation of a claimant's lawyers to share such a belief.
It will be fascinating to see to what extent the shared common law roots of the Florida & E & W jurisdictions coincide.
The notion that Trump has some kind of belief in the genuineness of anything he claims would be viewed by some as misplaced. The roundness of the figures suggest he’s playing in a ballpark. Their size is intended to frighten and, possibly, to ‘anchor’ the figures for negotiation purposes. Maybe also to influence a jury. No doubt some explanation would be pleaded, but claims for general damages are often vague and exaggerated. At one time, it was possible for libel claimants in England to receive huge awards, such as c.£1 million awarded to ‘Kojak’ by a jury. Since then, juries are directed to make awards comparable with likely damages for personal injuries. That’s one of many reasons why Trump hasn’t issued his claim in England, clearly the appropriate forum.
I'm not a betting type of person but if I were, my money would go on any right thinking lawyers wholeheartedly agreeing with Trump's position. Naturally BBC will have chosen lawyers that reflect their own horrible belief system.
It’s a good thing for your pocket that you’re not a betting man!
He has just claimed that the BBC invented his words “using AI” rather than editing what he actually said. This seems rather at odds with what is claimed in the documents filed so far.
I think you are missing the whole point.
By editing the BBC skilfully(?) juxtaposed statements as if one flowed from the other making it appear that he was extolling the mob to get into the capitol.
There's no doubt that it was GLOBALLY defamatory .
Had I mentioned that at all you might have a point. But my remark addresses what he has said post the filing of the action which greatly changes the nature of his claim. I think we can expect it to change many times before it gets anywhere near a court.
But nice to know you have already decided the case without seeing the BBC’s defence.
No it doesn't. The claim and what is said in the claim is what is important. Not anything said ( or reported as being said) in the aftermath.
Its like contract law: the terms of the claim are within the claim, and can not be modified per se after that claim has been submitted.
Really? You seem unaware that it is commonplace in civil cases for amendments to be made to claims, subject to court permission. However this is not (so far) so much a case of an amendment as the client contradicting his lawyers. Which if nothing else could make for interesting cross examination.