Mulloy v Swider [2025] EWHC 1557 (KB) (23 June 2025)

Mulloy v Swider [2025] EWHC 1557 (KB) (23 June 2025)

The deputy master correctly applied the legal principles governing summary judgment and serious harm in defamation, found the First Post was not inherently seriously harmful, had limited publication, and the pleaded effects were insufficient. No procedural irregularity or error of law was established. The appeal fails on all grounds.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1557 (KB)
Parties
Appellant: Deborah Mulloy; Respondent: Katarzyna Swider
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Serious Harm, Pleadings, Case Management, Harassment, Alternative Dispute Resolution
Defamation Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Serious Harm Pleadings Case Management Harassment Alternative Dispute Resolution

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Mulloy

Appellant

Katarzyna Swider

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deputy master erred in granting summary judgment on the defamation claim regarding the First Post
  2. 2 Whether the deputy master misapplied the legal test for summary judgment and serious harm
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities rendered the decision unjust

Ratio Decidendi

The deputy master correctly applied the legal principles governing summary judgment and serious harm in defamation, found the First Post was not inherently seriously harmful, had limited publication, and the pleaded effects were insufficient. No procedural irregularity or error of law was established. The appeal fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in full
  • Costs to respondent, subject to CPR r 46.5 for litigants in person