A High Court judge has been criticised for his ‘overbearing’ handling of a libel claimant.
Businessman Jan Tomasz Serafin, a prominent figure in the London expat community, claimed damages for libel over a satirical article in a popular Polish-language monthly magazine, Nowy Czas (‘New Time’), published in 2014. An English translation of the article, ‘Bankruptcy need not be painful’, is attached to the judgment. The magazine did not ask Serafin for a comment or attempt to present another side of the story.
Mr Justice Jay dismissed the claim following a seven-day trial, where Serafin represented himself. The Court of Appeal, however, allowed Serafin’s appeal on all five grounds, including ‘unfair judicial treatment’.
Giving judgment in Serafin v Malkiewicz [2019] EWCA Civ 852, Lewison, McCombe and Haddon-Cave LJJ heavily criticised Jay J’s conduct of the case.
During the trial, for example, Jay J told Serafin ‘your reputation is already beginning to fall to pieces, because you are a liar, and you do treat women in a frankly disgusting way, on your own admission’. This followed Serafin’s admission that he had lied to investors and had carried on relationships with two women at the same time. Jay J also suggested answers to the witnesses.
The three Lords Justice said: ‘The judge's interventions during the claimant's evidence were highly unusual and troubling. On numerous occasions, the judge appears not only to have descended to the arena, cast off the mantle of impartiality and taken up the cudgels of cross-examination, but also to have used language which was threatening, overbearing and, frankly, bullying. One is left with the regrettable impression of a judge who, if not partisan, developed an animus towards the claimant.’
They said: ‘The judge was clearly aware that, as a matter of law, the burden of proof lay on the defendants… However, at times he appeared to suggest that the claimant had to prove his innocence of the charges made against him.’
Overall, Jay J had shown ‘contempt’ for Serafin, and ‘when the defendants themselves gave evidence, the judge adopted an entirely different approach’.
