• Contact Us

Retrial Ordered in Libel Case Concerning UK Polish-Language Newspaper

on Friday, 12 June 2020.

The Supreme Court has made a rare finding of unfair judicial treatment towards a litigant in person and ordered a retrial of his claim for libel, due to an article published about him in a Polish magazine.

The article alleged, amongst other things, that he had profited at the expense of the charitable organisations he was involved with.

Defamatory Allegations

Mr Jan Tomasz Serafin claimed damages for libel against the editor and co-publishers of Polish-language magazine 'Nowy Czas', in respect of an article published about him in 2014.

Mr Serafin was a Polish emigrant who was involved in various businesses following his arrival in England. He was part of a charitable organisation called POSK (Polish Social and Cultural Association) in London and sat on the General Council of POSK for around 15 years, until 2012.   

In 2008, he founded a food business called Polfood (UK) Ltd, but in 2011 a bankruptcy order was made against him. Subsequently, Mr Serafin became involved in another charity, Kolbe House Society - a care home for elderly Polish people in London. He had previously delivered bread to Kolbe House in 2006 and later organised for Polfood to supply food products to Kolbe House (whilst it was trading). Mr Serafin resumed delivering bread to residents in 2012 and later became the maintenance man. 

In October 2014, an article entitled "Bankruptcy Need Not Be Painful" was published in Nowy Czas without Mr Serafin's prior knowledge (he was not contacted for the opportunity to comment before publication). This article, written in Polish, named Mr Serafin and made what he contended were multiple defamatory allegations which amounted to a character assassination. This included allegations concerning his charitable work at POSK and Kolbe House Society, and about his conduct of Polfood. Therefore, he brought a claim for damages against the magazine.

Trial, Appeal and Appeal Again

In 2017, following a one week trial in the High Court in London in which Mr Serafin acted as a litigant in person without representation by lawyers, the claim was dismissed by Mr Justice Jay who heavily criticised Mr Serafin. The defendants succeeded in their argument that the publication was justified for public interest reasons (which is one of the defences to a claim in defamation).

However, on appeal brought by Mr Serafin, that ruling was overturned by Court of Appeal in May 2019. There were five grounds of appeal (all were permitted), the most notable of which were whether the public interest defence should have applied and unfair judicial treatment.

The Court of Appeal described Mr Justice Jay's interventions during Mr Serafin's evidence at trial as "highly unusual and troubling" and commented that on numerous occasions the language used by him was "threatening, overbearing and, frankly, bullying.

The Court of Appeal also found that Mr Justice Jay erred in finding that the defamatory statements contained in Nowy Czas were in the public interest, saying "the Judge’s approach to this issue was misconceived. The article was not about how POSK and Kolbe House were run as charities (…).  Rather, the article was aimed at the narrower target of the claimant’s personal life, mores and conduct as a contractor, supplier and volunteer to these two organisations". 

The Court of Appeal's decision was challenged by the defendants and the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court reviewed full transcripts of the evidence given at the defamation trial and upheld the Court of Appeal's conclusion that Mr Justice Jay did not allow the claim to be properly presented. Once again, the trial was found to be unfair to Mr Serafin. The Supreme Court judgment said, "Instead of making allowance for the claimant’s appearance in person, the judge harassed and intimidated him in ways which surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented". Therefore, a complete retrial was ordered.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal's reasoning on the public interest defence and ruled that at the new trial, the new judge will decide whether to uphold the defendant's public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 without reference to the Court of Appeal's reasoning on this point. 

Reputation Management Issues

In the context of a litigant in person whose first language was not English, Mr Justice Jay's conduct is surprising and a reminder of the importance of the judiciary being neutral whilst evidence is given by all parties in order to avoid bias.    

The Supreme Court judgment is significant on both unfair judicial treatment and the public interest defence. The case highlights the weight and careful consideration given to protecting reputation.  However, the costs involved in defamation claims are often significant and charities need to carefully consider whether it is a good idea for them or the individuals connected with them to pursue such claims if they face reputational harm. Litigation also comes with cost risks, meaning that, depending on the outcome, a party may not only be liable for their own legal costs, but also for those of the opposing party. Therefore, charities or individuals facing any kind of reputation management issues will need to weigh up reputational harm against the costs involved in taking legal action.


We regularly advise individuals, schools and charities on defamation issues. If you have any concerns or questions about this area or challenges faced by litigants in person and/or other parties in claims involving litigants in person, please contact Ben Holt, the Litigation Partner who leads our Reputation Management team, on 07715 048666 or complete the form below.

Get in Touch

First name(*)
Please enter your first name.

Last name(*)
Invalid Input

Email address(*)
Please enter a valid email address

Telephone
Please insert your telephone number.

How would you like us to contact you?

Invalid Input

How can we help you?(*)
Please limit text to alphanumeric and the following special characters: £.%,'"?!£$%^&*()_-=+:;@#`

See our privacy page to find out how we use and protect your data.

Invalid Input