Siobhain Crosbie v Caroline Ley
[2023] EWHC 2626 (KB)
Dr Riccardo Frati v Karen Bowen-Carter
22 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 627 (KB)
High Court
A doctor sued a patient for a bad online review. The patient tried to get the case thrown out quickly, saying not enough people saw the review. The judge said there was enough evidence the review was seen by many, and let the doctor add information about the patient telling others the same things.
Key Facts
- •Dr Riccardo Frati (Claimant), a plastic surgeon, sued Karen Bowen-Carter (Defendant), an art dealer and former patient, for libel and harassment.
- •The Defendant posted a negative Google Business Review (GBR) about the Claimant, alleging fraudulent practices, including offering discounted procedures to celebrities for false endorsements.
- •The Defendant removed the review after receiving a letter of claim, but the Claimant proceeded with legal action.
- •The Defendant applied for summary judgment, arguing insufficient publication to constitute a substantial tort.
- •The Claimant argued the GBR's high visibility and his online presence suggested substantial publication.
- •The Claimant also sought to amend his claim to include allegations of the Defendant's repetition of the defamatory statements to third parties and the 'grapevine effect'.
Legal Principles
In libel, the claimant must prove publication to someone other than themselves; publication to more than one person is not required, but there must be a real and substantial tort.
Capital and Counties Bank v Henty (1882) 7 App Cas 741; Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946; Al Amoudi v Brisard [2006] EWHC 1062; Mardas v New York Times Company [2008] EWHC 3135 (QB); King v Grundon [2012] EWHC 2719
For internet publications, there's no presumption of substantial publication; claimants can prove publication via evidence from a reader or by presenting facts inferring substantial publication.
Al Amoudi v Brisard [2006] EWHC 1062; Carrie v Tolkien [2009] EWHC 29 (QB)
Summary judgment can be granted if the claimant has no real prospect of success and there's no compelling reason for a trial.
CPR rule 24.2
In defamation, the court considers whether there has been sufficient publication to constitute a real and substantial tort, not just the number of people exposed to the publication.
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946; Webb v Jones [2021] EWHC 1618 (QB)
Claimants can rely on the 'grapevine effect' to show wider dissemination of defamatory statements, particularly enhanced by social media.
Turley v Unite the Union and another [2019] EWHC 3547(QB); Cairns v Modi [2013] 1 WLR 1015; Slipper v British Broadcasting Corporation [1991] 1 QB 283
Outcomes
The Defendant's application for summary judgment was dismissed.
The Claimant had a realistic prospect of proving substantial publication based on the GBR's viewership data and evidence of his online presence and the importance of online reviews in his business.
The Claimant's application to amend his Particulars of Claim was granted in part.
Amendments relating to the 'grapevine effect' were allowed as potentially relevant to publication and serious harm. Amendments regarding the Defendant's repetition of defamatory statements to third parties were also allowed due to their relevance to the harassment claim and potential evidence of malice. However, the amendments were adjusted to improve clarity and avoid introducing disproportionate issues.