× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Access to justice and advice sector issues  →  Thread

Negative review of law firm results in £25,000 libel damages

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3777

Joined: 14 April 2010

Eek ....

A disgruntled client who posted unsubstantiated defamatory claims about a law firm on a review website has been ordered to pay £25,000 in damages.

Giving summary judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth, Master David Cook said that a ‘substantial’ number of clients were put off after Philip James Waymouth wrote on the Trustpilot website that his experience had been ‘A total waste of money another scam solicitor’ [sic].

The national firm brought proceedings for libel and sought general damages limited to £25,000 and special damages of £300 per day to cover the drop-off in work. The firm also asked for an order to remove the defamatory words from Trustpilot.

Reporting:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/disgruntled-client-ordered-to-pay-25000-damages-for-libellous-review/5107081.article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55981600

Judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html

Va1der
forum member

Welfare Rights Officer with SWAMP Glasgow

Send message

Total Posts: 706

Joined: 7 May 2019

Aaand…. there are now hundreds of bad reviews of them on Trustpilot, just from the past few hours.
Is any publicity good publicity?

Not sure it speaks volumes about the good judgement of a law firm if they fail to appreciate the possible consequences of their actions in an online community.
If they had anticipated this kind of negative pushback - what does that say about the grounds for the judgement?

[ Edited: 9 Feb 2021 at 04:11 pm by Va1der ]
Gareth Morgan
forum member

CEO, Ferret, Cardiff

Send message

Total Posts: 2002

Joined: 16 June 2010

...or they could sue all the new bad reviewers as well?

Va1der
forum member

Welfare Rights Officer with SWAMP Glasgow

Send message

Total Posts: 706

Joined: 7 May 2019

Gareth Morgan - 09 February 2021 04:08 PM

...or they could sue all the new bad reviewers as well?

One of the reviewers is named ‘Benjamin Button’...

Fake identities aside - most of the current negative reviews could be argued to be legitimate, as they criticise the behaviour of the firm, rather than the quality of their work.

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3777

Joined: 14 April 2010

Update:

The review site at the centre of a high-profile libel claim by a law firm has vowed to challenge attempts to take any comment down.

Denmark-based Trustpilot said the judgment in Summerfield Browne v Waymouth contained a number of errors and raised ‘significant concerns’ around freedom of speech.

More: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/trustpilot-to-fight-order-to-take-down-libellous-solicitor-review/5107374.article

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3128

Joined: 14 July 2014

Lessons to be learnt:

1. Don’t call someone’s business a “scam” online unless you can actually back it up (or you want to lose your shirt).

2. If someone does call your business a “scam” online, it probably isn’t worth suing them over it (unless you want to get bombarded with meme reviews).

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Does this mean I need to take my Hotel Chocolat reviews down?  😊

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

It serves him damn right!