ARIO secures Supreme Court victory: defamation claim over public official’s statements dismissed

ARIO secures Supreme Court victory: defamation claim over public official’s statements dismissed

An ARIO team comprising Senior Partner Julian Khorunzhiy, Counsel Vadim Slusar and Associate Andrii Ivchenko successfully defended a public figure in a defamation case before the Supreme Court. The Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court’s Civil Court of Cassation allowed ARIO’s appeal, overturned the first-instance and appellate judgments, and dismissed the claim against the firm’s client, including the claim for non-pecuniary damages.

Background

The dispute concerned a public statement made by a deputy mayor of Lviv during a discussion about a decision by the Executive Committee of Lviv City Council. The city wanted to open a street to pedestrians. For traders at the nearby Dobrobut Market, this meant removing a fence and changing the existing access arrangements. A remark made during that discussion subsequently became the subject of litigation.

The claimant, a lawyer representing the company that owned the building housing Dobrobut Market, alleged that the official’s statement had damaged his honour, dignity and professional reputation. He brought a defamation claim and sought non-pecuniary damages.

The first-instance and appellate courts ruled in the claimant’s favour. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.

ARIO’s arguments

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, ARIO argued that the lower courts had incorrectly applied both substantive and procedural law.

The defence rested on two key arguments.

First, the statement at issue was a value judgment rather than an assertion of fact. It had been made during a heated public debate on a matter of public interest.

Second, the claim had been brought against the wrong defendant. The official was acting in the course of his duties as a representative of a local authority, rather than in a private capacity. The proper defendant was therefore the legal entity he represented, rather than the official personally.

The Supreme Court agreed that, in such circumstances, the proper defendant is the legal entity represented by the official, provided that the conduct in question occurred in the course of the official’s duties. It therefore overturned the lower courts’ judgments and dismissed the claim.

“Defamation cases often focus solely on the words used. But it also matters who said what, and in what capacity. Getting those distinctions right can determine the outcome of a case,” said ARIO Counsel Vadim Slusar.