Serafin v Malkiewicz and others

Serafin v Malkiewicz and others

The trial was rendered unfair by the judge's conduct, including excessive intervention, hostility, and failure to accommodate the litigant in person. As a result, the judgment cannot stand and a full retrial is required. The Court of Appeal erred in not ordering a retrial after finding the trial unfair. The public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 must be applied flexibly, without treating the Reynolds factors as a checklist, and the new trial judge should not be bound by the Court of Appeal's flawed analysis of section 4.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Mr Serafin; Appellant/defendant: Mr Malkiewicz; Appellant/defendant: Czas Publishers Ltd; Appellant/defendant: Mrs Bazarnik-Malkiewicz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (defamation) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the Court of Appeal set aside; full retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Unfair Trial, Judicial Conduct, Public Interest Defence, Section 4 Defamation Act 2013, Reynolds Defence, Damages, Remittal and Retrial
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Unfair Trial Judicial Conduct Public Interest Defence Section 4 Defamation Act 2013 Reynolds Defence +2 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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Serafin

Respondent/claimant

Mr Malkiewicz

Appellant/defendant

Czas Publishers Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Mrs Bazarnik-Malkiewicz

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (defamation) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's conduct rendered the trial unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not ordering a retrial after finding the trial unfair
  3. 3 Proper interpretation and application of the public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The trial was rendered unfair by the judge's conduct, including excessive intervention, hostility, and failure to accommodate the litigant in person. As a result, the judgment cannot stand and a full retrial is required. The Court of Appeal erred in not ordering a retrial after finding the trial unfair. The public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 must be applied flexibly, without treating the Reynolds factors as a checklist, and the new trial judge should not be bound by the Court of Appeal's flawed analysis of section 4.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the Court of Appeal set aside; full retrial ordered

Orders

  • The orders of Mr Justice Jay and the Court of Appeal are set aside.
  • The matter is remitted for a full retrial before a different judge, subject to any agreed narrowing of issues.