David Paisley v Graham Linehan
[2024] EWHC 1976 (KB)
BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot A/S
24 January 2023
[2023] EWHC 6 (KB)
High Court
A law firm sued Trustpilot because of bad reviews. A judge read each review and said most of what was written was true and made the law firm look bad, so Trustpilot had to pay.
Key Facts
- •BW Legal Services Limited (Claimant) sued Trustpilot A/S (Defendant) for libel.
- •The suit concerned 20 reviews on Trustpilot's website about BW Legal.
- •The reviews contained allegations of fraud and harassment against BW Legal.
- •The court first determined the meaning of the reviews and whether they were statements of fact or opinion.
Legal Principles
Determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words in a libel case.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Limited [2020] 4 WLR 24, Nicklin J at [11]-[17]; Millett v Corbyn [2021] EMLR 19
Admissible context in determining the meaning of online reviews.
Monroe v Hopkins [2017] 4 WLR 68; Riley v Murray [2020] EMLR 20, 387; Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2020] EWHC 934 (QB)
Distinguishing between statements of fact and expressions of opinion in libel.
Koutsogiannis [16]; Telnikoff v Mutusevitch [1992] 2 AC 343; Riley v Murrey [13]-[18]; Swan v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC (QB) 1312
Determining whether a statement is defamatory at common law for a company.
Triplark v Northwood Hall [2020] EWHC 3934 (QB); Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
Indicating the basis of opinion for the defense of honest opinion under Section 3(3) of the Defamation Act 2013.
Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 971; Godfrey v Institute of Conservation [2020] EWHC 374 (QB)
Outcomes
The court determined the meaning of each review.
The court considered the text of each review, the context of the Trustpilot website, and how a reasonable reader would interpret them.
Most of the reviews were deemed to contain statements of fact and expressions of opinion.
The court found that the reviewers' descriptions of their experiences were largely factual, while their opinions and conclusions were also part of the reviews.
All the reviews were considered defamatory at common law.
The court determined that the statements would lead a reasonable person to believe BW Legal conducts business improperly, causing substantial reputational harm.