Can Companies Get Injunctions Against Negative Reviews?

CF & L Ltd and others v Fraser and other companies [2025] EWHC 3350 (KB)

CF&L Limited and iSpy Group are companies that supply water coolers and coffee machines for business. BJM MOT Limited owned by Mr Brendon Murray entered into a contract with CF&L for a water cooler.

BJM initially tried to cancel the contract in September 2022 (unsuccessfully). In September 2025, Mr Fraser who worked for another company owned by Mr Murray contacted CF&L on Mr Murray’s behalf to end the contract. CF&L refused to deal with Mr Fraser as he was not the contracting party. Mr Fraser therefore had a telephone conversation with two iSpy employees: Ellie Smith; and Gemma Franklin.

Following the conversations, Mr Fraser posted highly critical one-star reviews of both CF&L and iSpy. His comments within the reviews included allegations of “horrendous service” and claims that the companies used third-party contractors to tie users into long contracts with no means of cancellation.

Unhappy with the reviews, the companies issued a cease and desist letter on 8 September 2025 and asked Mr Fraser to take the reviews down. He refused and claimed that the comments he had made were true and an honest account of his experience. The companies filed a claim on 26 September 2025 against Mr Fraser for libel, harassment and misuse of private information. The claimants also applied for an interim injunction. Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC was tasked with deciding whether an interim injunction should be granted.

Libel injunction

The court applied the well-established rule from Bonnard v Perryman, namely that the court will not grant an interim injunction in libel where the defendant is relying on a defence unless it is established that the defence is bound to fail.

In this case, Mr Fraser was relying on the defence of truth and honest opinion. The court looked first at the Claimants’ pleaded case and noted that as companies they had to show that the reviews had caused (or were likely to cause) seriously financial loss. They had not pleaded any serious financial loss and therefore, this was a significant weakness in their case. The court noted that, whilst this was not decisive on its own, it added to the difficulty faced by the Claimants.

In a notable passage from the judgment, the Judge emphasised the following in relation to online reviews:

Given this and the defences raised, the Judge found that the Claimants had not met the Bonnard test and there the injunction to remove the reviews was refused.

Harassment injunction

Alongside libel, the Claimants alleged that Mr Fraser’s behaviour including email exchanges and the telephone call with the two iSpy employees amounted to harassment. The Judge found that, whilst the emails were not polite, they did not cross the line into being oppressive and unacceptable. The Judge actually commented that “a bit of rudeness must be tolerated… it is not the role of the High Court to enforce standards of politeness by injunction”.

In relation to the telephone call, this itself did not amount to a course of conduct (i.e. more than one act). It also did not cross the threshold into “oppressive and unacceptable”. No threats were made to the two employees, Mr Fraser simply threatened to post the reviews about the companies which he then went on to do. The harassment injunction was therefore refused.

Misuse of private information injunction

A director of the companies argued that Mr Fraser had misused her private information by disclosing in his Google review information about her health. The Judge acknowledged that health information typically carries a strong expectation of privacy. But acknowledged that in this case, the employee was not named and the information was relayed as it was given as an explanation of why she could not discuss the contract issues with him. It should also be noted that Mr Fraser removed reference to this from the review following the preliminary hearing (as requested by the court).

The Claimants argued that there was still a threat that Mr Fraser could republish the information. The Judge disagreed and no injunction was granted.

Comment

This case reinforces just how cautious the courts are to injunct consumers from writing reviews about companies especially at an interim stage where credible defences are raised.