The UK High Court has found in favour of a law firm in an action for defamation against a controversial website set up to “name and shame corrupt, negligent, dishonest, crooked, fraudulent lawyers.”
When still operational, the anonymous website solicitorsfromhell.co.uk posted defamatory statements against solicitors, including testimonies from clients claiming to have been mistreated by their legal representatives. In this case, the site contained allegations of mismanagement, including incompetence and fraud, against the claimant firm of solicitors. Despite numerous efforts to ascertain the owner/operator of the website, the judgement was issued in default of appearance. Warby J in the High Court was satisfied that the claim would have come to the attention of those responsible and saw “no reason not to proceed in their absence.”
The judge was also satisfied that the requirements of Section 10 of the Defamation Act 2013 had been fulfilled and therefore the claim of defamation had been made out. Firstly, the defendants, known as ‘Persons Unknown’, were held to be editors of the remarks complained of. Secondly, the Court was satisfied that the allegations had caused financial harm to the claimant. The firm was a newly established, boutique business which relies on internet searches for much of its work. However, for a period of six months, when an internet search was done for the solicitors firm a link to the ‘Solicitors from Hell’ website appeared immediately underneath the firm’s own website. The link read inter alia “[r]ude, intimidating and threatening. Clients should stay well away from Brett Wilson Solicitors.” The claimant further asserted a “noticeable drop” in the conversion of enquiries from prospective clients to instructions over the period.
As for the remedy, the judge accepted the claim for summary relief under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 1996, which limits damages to £10,000. The claimant also sought both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, including the removal from the of the webpage in question from the internet. Although Warby J “hesitated” over these mandatory orders, given that they would impose obligations which the defendants might be unable to comply with in practice, he was ultimately satisfied that they were necessary in the circumstances. The injunctions appear to have been successful as the website has since been removed.