Success of the Law Firm’s client in a case concerning the protection of personal rights

The alleged infringement of personal rights was alleged to have occurred in the course of correspondence exchanged by our client with the company’s business partner, and its source was a claim made by the client in one e-mail. The claimant company brought an action against the client, demanding that an apology be sent to her and her business partner, as well as the payment of a symbolic sum to charity. The ruling, however, was intended to be a prejudicial document establishing the Client’s liability for the infringement of the plaintiff company’s personal rights and, in addition, could be the basis for further proceedings for possible damage suffered by the company, including, inter alia, the loss of the company’s key contractors.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the claim in its entirety. In the verbal justification of the judgment, the Court indicated beyond any doubt that the claim in the present case formulated on the basis of Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code is completely unfounded.

The Court almost entirely shared the legal and factual arguments of the respondent Client’s attorneys. In the Court’s opinion, the Client’s conduct did not bear the signs of unlawfulness, as the Court assessed it through the prism of Article 12 of the Press Law, stating that the Client, while preparing the press publication as an experienced journalist, acted with particular diligence and reliability. Such action excludes the unlawfulness of the violation of personal rights. Based on the testimony given by our Client and one of the witnesses, the Court took full account of the argument that the Client’s working methodology in the course of preparing press materials was correct and based on reliable verification of the information obtained, which the plaintiff company failed to challenge.

Another important element of the Court’s decision was the fact that the plaintiff did not prove, even to the slightest extent, that any damage had been caused to the company – the information perceived by the plaintiff as an infringement of his personal rights was intended for a narrow circle of recipients – as it appeared in the course of correspondence exchanged with the company’s contractors.

In this state of affairs, based on the objective criteria applied by the Court, it is impossible to conclude that there was an unlawful infringement of personal rights by the Firm’s client, which resulted in the claim being dismissed in its entirety and the plaintiff company being ordered to pay the costs of legal representation.

The judgment in the case is not final.

The case is being handled by counsel, law firm partner Jan Saklawski and attorney Paulina Sulkowska.