Awarded £25,000 in general damages and Trustpilot ordered to remove review

legal updates

Perhaps the wide reporting of this case will give malicious reviewers pause for thought.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Widely reported upon this week has been the judgement in the defamation claim of Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth.

The claim for libel was commenced by Summerfield Brown against Mr Waymouth, a former client, after he left a negative review on the Trust Pilot website, which read:

“A total waste of money another scam solicitor
Stacey mills left the company half way through my assessment and the replacement was useless. I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case, but what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me. No new information or how to proceed or what the law says or indeed the implications of what was done. I Just got their false assumptions, full of errors showing a lack of understanding for the situation and the law. Once they have your money they are totally apathetic towards you. You will learn more from forums, you tube and the Citizens advice website about your case, for free”

Review left on Trust Pilot

Mr Waymouth did not fully engage with the proceedings and did not attend the hearing, but did acknowledge service and submit a defence, which the Claimants applied to have struck out. 

The Defence sought to rely his defence on honest opinion, public interest and truth which the judge considered in turn:

In relation to honest opinion, the Claimant’s position was that the Defendant could not rely upon the defence of honest opinion as he had accused the claimant of being dishonest and fraudulent – in his opinion.  The judge accepted the Claimant’s argument that the defence of honest opinion cannot succeed in cases where there has been an allegation of fraud and referred the judge to the case of Wasserman v Freilich [2016].  The judge agreed with them. 

Mr Waymouth had sought money from the firm in return for removal of the review (a refund of his payment for the services).  The judge found this demand to have wholly undermined his defence of public interest.  Further, he had not engaged with the Claimant’s complaint procedure to resolve matters before posting the review.  There was no defence that the review was in the public interest.

In relation to the defence of truth, the Claimant submitted that there was no credible basis for asserting the truth of the Defendant’s belief, as they were a responsible firm of solicitors with an unblemished record who could, under no circumstances be truthfully described as a “scam firm.”

The judge accepted that Summerfield Brown had suffered direct financial loss as a result of the review, with a significant drop in online enquiries in the months following the publication.  They were awarded £25,000 in general damages and a s13 order requiring Trustpilot remove the review. 

Defamation claims have a limitation period of a year and are brought in the High Court.  They are notoriously expensive and the Claimant must be able to demonstrate the serious harm caused to their reputation as a direct result of the review or other publication.  Perhaps the wide reporting of this case will give malicious reviewers pause for thought and make use of all available avenues of complaint before posting a review of their experience with the company in question.  

Profit BoxDevelop your people like your business depends on it

What most people don’t know is that talent development doesn’t have to be complicated, high risk or expensive. Once they integrate key development stages, the results can be remarkable. Empower your team. Lead your industry. We’re your strategic learning partner, driving performance by moving skills forward.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Navigating legal remedies for unpaid debts in vehicle repairs

Learn how to safeguard your rights and assets in vehicle repairs with expert insights on managing torts and liens effectively.

Fake reviews differ from defamatory reviews

Tripadvisor’s latest transparency report identified and removed 1.3m fake reviews last year.

Disclaimers – are these really worth the paper they are written on?

Of course, if someone ignores all valid warnings and suffers injury, then they may only have themselves to blame.

The court finds car dealer partly liable for damage caused by the removal of a sticker!

Due to COVID-19, the court held an Early Neutral Evaluation, a 30-minute telephone assessment of each party’s position.

Car Dealers and Consumers – A Modern Day Tale

Ambulance chasers and chancer consumers are two pet hates of the legal team and we relish dealing with their issues here at Lawgistics.

Defamation – How suing for libel and slander is easier said than done!

All well and good for the rich and famous or organisations with cavernously deep pockets but for mere mortals, that is rarely the answer.

Lawgistics Google reviews – 1* from a consumer is as good as 5* from a member

As with many things, it’s all about the ‘context’ and in this context, I shall now take 1* as a badge of honour.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.