Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2017] EWHC 2992 (QB) (24 November 2017)

Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2017] EWHC 2992 (QB) (24 November 2017)

The court held that the various imputations in the article were separate and distinct and must be justified individually. The Defendants succeeded in establishing the substantial truth of several serious imputations, including dishonesty, abuse of position, and unethical conduct by the Claimant. Some imputations did not meet the serious harm threshold or were not proved. The Claimant's credibility was found wanting, and his disclosure was inadequate. The Defendants' public interest and honest opinion defences were considered but not determinative. The claim for misuse of private information in relation to the photograph failed as the Claimant did not have a reasonable expectation of...

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2992
Parties
Claimant: Jan Tomasz Serafin; First Defendant: Grzegorz Malkiewicz; Second Defendant: Czas Publishers Ltd; Third Defendant: Teresa Bazarnik-Malkiewicz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Privacy / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Misuse of Private Information, Truth Defence, Honest Opinion Defence, Public Interest Defence, Serious Harm Threshold, Common Sting, Credibility of Witnesses
Defamation Privacy Media Law Libel Misuse of Private Information Truth Defence Honest Opinion Defence Public Interest Defence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Tomasz Serafin

Claimant

Grzegorz Malkiewicz

First Defendant

Czas Publishers Ltd

Second Defendant

Teresa Bazarnik-Malkiewicz

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Privacy / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the Defendants was defamatory of the Claimant under the Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' pleaded defences of truth, honest opinion, and public interest are made out
  3. 3 Whether the words complained of meet the threshold of serious harm to reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the various imputations in the article were separate and distinct and must be justified individually. The Defendants succeeded in establishing the substantial truth of several serious imputations, including dishonesty, abuse of position, and unethical conduct by the Claimant. Some imputations did not meet the serious harm threshold or were not proved. The Claimant's credibility was found wanting, and his disclosure was inadequate. The Defendants' public interest and honest opinion defences were considered but not determinative. The claim for misuse of private information in relation to the photograph failed as the Claimant did not have a reasonable expectation of...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for libel and misuse of private information dismissed
  • No injunction granted