Dr Riccardo Frati v Karen Bowen-Carter
[2023] EWHC 627 (KB)
Jaqueline Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors) v Christopher John Henry
20 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2898 (KB)
High Court
A solicitor sued a former client for bad online reviews. The judge said the solicitor didn't prove the client wrote them, even though the client's name was similar to the reviewers' names. The judge also said the solicitor didn't prove the reviews caused serious harm or that the client intended to be mean. The lawsuit was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Jacqueline Samuels (claimant), a sole practitioner solicitor, sued Christopher John Henry (defendant), her former client, for malicious falsehood and libel.
- •The claims arose from three negative Google reviews posted about the claimant's firm.
- •The defendant denied posting the reviews.
- •The claimant relied on circumstantial evidence, such as the authors' names and timing of the posts, to link the defendant to the reviews.
- •The claimant lacked direct evidence linking the defendant to the reviews and did not pursue avenues like Norwich Pharmacal orders to obtain the posters' identities.
Legal Principles
In claims of malicious falsehood and libel, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant published, or is legally responsible for publishing, the material complained of.
This case
To prove publication in online defamation cases, circumstantial evidence may be considered, but it must be sufficiently strong to establish a link between the defendant and the publication.
This case and case law cited within it (implicitly)
An allegation of malice requires evidence beyond the mere fact of negative reviews; the claimant must demonstrate that the defendant intended to harm the claimant's business.
This case
In defamation cases, serious harm must be proven; a mere assertion of harm is insufficient, with evidence required to support any claim of serious reputational or financial damage.
This case
A litigant cannot wait to see how the evidence comes out at trial before deciding whether or not to seek new and further evidence.
This case
Outcomes
The claims were dismissed.
The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant published or was responsible for the publication of the three Google reviews. The circumstantial evidence was insufficient, and the defendant's denial was not contradicted by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, the claimant failed to adequately prove malice or serious harm.