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, not forming a 'common sting', and that the Defendants were required to prove the substantial truth of each. The court found that some of the most serious allegations, including those relating to the Claimant's conduct at POSK, Polfood, and Kolbe House, were substantially true. The Claimant's credibility was found wanting, and his evidence was unreliable and evasive. The threshold of serious harm was met for the principal imputations. The honest opinion and public interest defences were not made out on the facts. The claim for misuse of private information in relation to the photograph failed as the...

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2992 (QB)
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, Public Interest Defence, Serious Harm Threshold, Credibility of Witnesses
Defamation Privacy Media Law Tort Libel Misuse of Private Information Truth Defence Honest Opinion +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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 words complained of caused or were likely to cause serious harm to the Claimant's reputation
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants could establish the truth of the imputations complained of

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the various imputations in the article were separate and distinct, not forming a 'common sting', and that the Defendants were required to prove the substantial truth of each. The court found that some of the most serious allegations, including those relating to the Claimant's conduct at POSK, Polfood, and Kolbe House, were substantially true. The Claimant's credibility was found wanting, and his evidence was unreliable and evasive. The threshold of serious harm was met for the principal imputations. The honest opinion and public interest defences were not made out on the facts. The claim for misuse of private information in relation to the photograph failed as the...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for libel and misuse of private information is dismissed.
  • No injunction is granted against the Defendants.