Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 (17 May 2019)

Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 (17 May 2019)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in finding that the statements were on matters of public interest under s.4(1)(a) Defamation Act 2013, as the article was primarily about the claimant's personal conduct rather than broader issues of public interest. The judge also erred in relying on an alleged concession by the claimant and in finding that the defendants reasonably believed publication was in the public interest, given the lack of reasonable journalistic steps such as contacting the claimant for comment. The public interest defence failed. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 852
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Jan Tomasz Serafin; Respondent/defendant: Grzegorz Malkiewicz; Respondent/defendant: Czas Publishers Limited; Respondent/defendant: Teresa Bazarnik-Malkiewicz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment below set aside to the extent of the public interest defence; matter remitted for further determination on damages and other relief.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamation Act 2013, Public Interest Defence, Truth Defence, Honest Opinion Defence, Serious Harm, Editorial Judgment, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Defamation Act 2013 Public Interest Defence Truth Defence Honest Opinion Defence +4 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Tomasz Serafin

Appellant/claimant

Grzegorz Malkiewicz

Respondent/defendant

Czas Publishers Limited

Respondent/defendant

Teresa Bazarnik-Malkiewicz

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements published were on matters of public interest under s.4 Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the defendants reasonably believed publication was in the public interest
  3. 3 Whether the defence of truth under s.2 was made out for certain allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in finding that the statements were on matters of public interest under s.4(1)(a) Defamation Act 2013, as the article was primarily about the claimant's personal conduct rather than broader issues of public interest. The judge also erred in relying on an alleged concession by the claimant and in finding that the defendants reasonably believed publication was in the public interest, given the lack of reasonable journalistic steps such as contacting the claimant for comment. The public interest defence failed. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment below set aside to the extent of the public interest defence; matter remitted for further determination on damages and other relief.

Orders

  • The public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013 is not available to the defendants on the facts.
  • The case is remitted to the High Court for determination of damages and any further relief.