Lessons from Samuels & Co Solicitors v Henry [2024]
Background
This article explores the defamation claim brought by Jacqueline Samuels, a solicitor at Samuels & Co Solicitors, against a former client, Christopher John Henry. The Claimant sued the Defendant over three negative online reviews posted on her Google Business Profile (the “Posts”), alleging both defamation and malicious falsehood. Ms Samuels had no direct evidence that the Defendant had actually published the reviews, but relied on circumstantial evidence to implicate the Defendant, such as the usernames and initials used in the reviews.
Judgment
The Claimant acknowledged the lack of direct evidence demonstrating the Defendant published the Posts. Instead, she relied on circumstantial evidence, such as the usernames and initials used in the Posts, the timing of the Posts in relation to the Defendant’s complaints being rejected, and the Defendant’s alleged motive to damage the Claimant’s reputation.
In her judgment dated 24 November 2024, the judge (Deputy Master Marzec) found the Claimant’s assertion that the Defendant had a motive to damage her reputation was speculative and did not constitute proof of publication. Although the usernames and initials used in the Posts could potentially be linked to the Defendant, they could also be coincidental or belong to someone else.
Furthermore, the Claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the Posts were published to a substantial number of people. In respect of establishing damage, the Claimant relied on an email from one individual who stated that she had read the Claimant’s reviews and decided not to proceed with the Claimant’s firm. However, that email did not specifically reference the Posts, and in any event the Claimant’s assertion that one person reading the Posts online could lead to an inference of widespread publication is unsupported by any legal authority.
The requirement of serious harm
In respect of the requirement of serious harm, The Defamation Act 2013 requires that a claimant must show that the publication of the defamatory statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation. In this case, the judge found the Claimant did not provide particulars supporting the claims of serious reputational harm or serious financial loss.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Claimant has not met the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendant published or is legally responsible for the Posts. Additionally, the Claimant has not provided adequate evidence to demonstrate that the Posts were published to a substantial number of people nor that they caused serious harm or financial loss.
Implications for Media Law
This case emphasises the importance of a claimant taking the necessary steps to prove that a defendant is legally responsible for online negative reviews; circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient. The Defamation Act 2013 requires that a claimant demonstrate that the publication of a defamatory statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.
For more information:
See our legal services page here.
Alternatively call: 00442074275970