Serafin v Malkiewicz
The statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest requires a reasonable belief that publishing the statement was in the public interest, judged by reference to what the publisher did.
Facts
Mr Serafin ran a business importing goods into the United Kingdom from Poland. A Polish language newspaper in London published an article making various allegations against him, including that he had swindled members of the Polish community and was a violent person. He sued for libel. The judge rejected his claim, partly on the basis of the defence of publication on a matter of public interest, under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, but the trial was conducted unfairly because of the judge's hostile approach to Mr Serafin.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court ordered a retrial, because the trial had been unfair. Lord Wilson considered the defence in section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, which requires the defendant to show that the statement was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, and that he reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest. He said that the defence was based on the common law Reynolds defence, and that the court should consider whether the publisher's belief was reasonable, which may include considering whether the publisher had taken steps to verify the allegations and to seek the claimant's response, although the Reynolds factors are not a checklist.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
