A solicitor has failed in a defamation motion in opposition to a former shopper over three destructive Google evaluations about her agency.
Deputy Grasp Marzec stated Jaqueline Samuels couldn’t show that Christopher Henry had written the three evaluations, and in any case couldn’t show that they induced her enterprise severe hurt.
The primary assessment had appeared two weeks after the authorized ombudsman rejected a criticism from Henry about his service from Samuels. Henry had additionally made an unsuccessful criticism to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, though the regulator had reminded the solicitor to make sure correspondence ‘stays skilled going forwards’.
The primary Google assessment on Samuels’ enterprise profile had stated: ‘Terrible legislation agency – the precept, Jackie Samuels was terrible to cope with. An unfriendly and unhelpful particular person – AVOID AVOID AVOID.’ The creator signed off as ‘Chris H’.
A second destructive submit was initially authored by a ‘John H’ (the defendant’s center identify is John) earlier than altering to ‘A Google Person’.
The third submit, which described Samuels as ‘impolite, abrasive, unhelpful and bitter’ was written by somebody calling themselves ‘P R’. Samuels instructed the courtroom these had been the initials of an affiliate of Henry.
Samuels, a property specialist who’s sole practitioner with Leeds-based Samuels & Co, instructed the courtroom she had no direct proof that Henry had written the evaluations, as a substitute counting on circumstantial issues. These included the creator’s declared names, and the two-week interval between the ombudsman resolution and the primary submit.
Samuels said that Henry had a motive to inflict injury on her and he or she cited an e-mail from a possible shopper referred to as Vera who had written: ‘Having appeared by way of your evaluations, I’m sorry to say I’m not pleased to proceed together with your agency.’
Henry denied on oath that he had made any of the posts and he didn’t know who had. He was a busy father of two babies who ‘didn’t go round posting evaluations’. He had by no means had a gmail tackle which was wanted to submit a assessment on Google Enterprise and had given the matter no thought after the ombudsman resolution till receiving Samuels’ declare type.
He instructed the courtroom that being sued by his former solicitor had been ‘a annoying time’, and that he believed that these claims had been a ridiculous use of the courtroom’s time as a result of, as he put it, individuals obtain good and unhealthy evaluations; this was regular.
Henry additionally said that Samuels had unsuccessfully sued two different people within the Excessive Court docket for posting allegedly defamatory and damaging evaluations about her.
The choose discovered no proof to show the posts had been written by Henry. The allegation of malice didn’t help Samuels as a result of that will require the courtroom to firstly discover that he had written the evaluations.
‘Even on the assumed premise that the defendant is the creator of those posts, I don’t agree that the posts had been or may very well be proof probative of an allegation of malice,’ added the choose. ‘They had been destructive evaluations in trenchant phrases however nothing in them signifies that the reviewer(s) is just not truthfully expressing his or her views.’
The declare was dismissed.