Google: Reviews were not malicious
A solicitor who sued a former client for malicious falsehood and libel over three reviews on her firm’s Google Business profile failed to prove he actually posted them, a judge has ruled.
Deputy Master Marzec said that, even if she had found to the contrary, she would have granted summary judgment to the defendant, Christopher John Henry, because Jacqueline Samuels had failed to prove malice on his part and that one of the reviews had caused her firm damage.
Ms Samuels, a property solicitor, is a sole practitioner trading as Samuels & Co in Leeds. Mr Henry was unhappy with the service he received from her, and in particular with the contents of an email Ms Samuels had sent him.
While both the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Legal Ombudsman did not uphold his complaints, the former reminded Ms Samuels of the importance of “ensuring correspondence remains professional going forwards”, while the latter noted that the “terminology in the email was not as diplomatic as it could have been”.
She first sued Mr Henry for malicious falsehood, with damages limited to £10,000, over two reviews. The first, posted by “Chris H”, said: “Awful law firm -the principle, Jackie Samuels was awful to deal with. An unfriendly and unhelpful individual – AVOID AVOID AVOID.”
The second, posted by “John H”, said: “Used this firm last year for a matter – whilst cheaper than other quotes I had, I suppose it’s true what they say – you pay what you get for! Never resolved my case communication and service was poor.”
Ms Samuels then issued a claim seeking damages for libel limited to £15,000 over a third review, whose author was said to be “P R”.
This said: “I used this solicitor last year and agree with the other reviewers. Pretending to be a big firm with two offices this is a one woman operation – Jacquline [sic] Samuels. She is horrible to deal with, rude abrasive, unhelpful and bitter. Do not use this firm”.
Mr Henry said he did not post the reviews and sought to strike out the claims. A preliminary hearing was held to decide whether he had posted them.
Deputy Master Marzec said the solicitor “freely and candidly acknowledged at the trial that she had ‘no direct evidence’” but relied on number of circumstantial matters, such as the names attached to the first two, while the initials on the third were the same of those of the woman who had jointly instructed Ms Samuels with Mr Henry.
Mr Henry insisted that, after his complaints were rejected, “the matter was effectively closed in my mind”.
The master said that, had she been determining Mr Henry’s application for summary judgment on the first two posts, she would have rejected it because of the names, although allowed it on the third.
“However, it does not appear to me that there is any other evidence on the first or second posts that takes the claimant’s case on publication much further.”
The first post came two weeks after the date of the SRA letter, “and therefore not especially close in time”. The second post appeared only two days after Ms Samuels said Mr Henry would have seen the letter of claim, but he stated that he did not receive it.
There was “no good reason to disbelieve him on this point”, the judge said.
The allegation of malice, meanwhile, was based on the solicitor’s belief that Mr Henry posted the reviews: “This is circular reasoning.”
Deputy Master Marzec stressed that there was no evidence to support the allegation of malice. Even if Mr Henry did write the posts, “nothing in them indicates that the reviewer(s) is not honestly expressing his or her views”.
She went on: “The usual reason people post reviews online, both good and bad, is to help other people make informed decisions. Unless there is something unusual about the wording of a review, it cannot reasonably be inferred from a bad review that the reviewer’s motive was to harm the person or organisation under review.
“In this case, the wording of the posts indicates only that the reviewer(s) had had a bad experience and believed that others would be better to choose a different provider of legal services.”
The master said there was “no sufficient basis” to find that Mr Henry had lied to the court on oath, adding that it was “striking” Ms Samuels had not sought to establish conclusively who had written the posts by making a third-party disclosure application or a Norwich Pharmacal application.
She also had regard to the fact that Ms Samuels had received other bad reviews, at least two of which she had sued over unsuccessfully (and both involving someone called Christopher). One was thrown out last year for breaches of the CPR.
“As the defendant rightly says, anyone could have posted the material complained about. The posts consist of complaints of a fairly generic kind that could have been posted by any unhappy client; none of it points specifically to the defendant.”
The judge dismissed the claims, adding that even if she had not, she would have issued summary judgment on the malicious falsehood claim because there no properly pleaded case, nor any sufficient evidence, of malice.
Meanwhile, there was no evidence of harm in the libel case except for an email from someone called ‘Vera’ who said she was withdrawing her instructions having read reviews of Samuels & Co – it did not say which reviews.
“I would have struck out the defamation case on the basis that there is no properly pleaded case on serious harm and/or given summary judgment on the basis that on the evidence any such case had no real prospect of success.”
Leave a Comment