In a defamation claim, there tends to be a trial of preliminary issue of meaning of the words spoken. What this trial is can be found in our previous blog here.
Paul Little Construction Ltd v Byrne [2026] EWHC 2577 (KB)
Background
The Claimant brought a libel claim against the Defendant concerning two one-star reviews posted on Google. The Court was asked to determine each review’s natural and ordinary meaning, whether it contained opinion, whether the basis of any opinion was indicated and whether the meaning was defamatory at common law.
[Note:The wording of the reviews is set out below for the purposes of the reader understanding the reason that the court reached the decision it did. The writer has no knowledge about whether the content of the reviews are accurate/true and accordingly, the repetition of the reviews below should not be taken as the writer making similar accusations against the Claimant.]
The first review (First Review) was:-
‘STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DON’T LET THIS COMPANY ANYWHERE NEAR YOUR BUILDING PROJECT
We engaged them to carry out some building work at our house and they did a terrible job on almost every aspect – see attached a sample of the photographs of their work on our project. They worked at our property for about eight months (much longer than they originally anticipated) and when we began to question some of the frankly extortionate additional costs, the company suggested that we find another contractor to complete the project. The company then promised (in writing) to pay for another contractor to correct all of their shoddy workmanship but have so far failed to honour that promise and so it is looking increasing likely that we will have to sue them to recover those costs. So far, that has cost us thousands of pounds, but at least we are now getting a professional job done by another contractor.
Not a comment on the workmanship, but I also attach the video of one of the company’s
employees urinating on our property!
Save yourself the hassle we have had; use another contractor – there are some really good ones out there.
N.B. the majority of the reviews below are given by members of staff and family members so take them with a pinch of salt.’
The second review (Second Review):-
‘VERY STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU DON’T LET THIS COMPANY ANYWHERE NEAR YOUR BUILDING PROJECT.
This company attempted to build our extension and I have had numerous issues with their poor workmanship. I have had to spend thousands and thousands of pounds paying someone else to correct their work.
I also caught one of their employees urinating on our property!!!’
Decision
The Court held that:-
- The single natural and ordinary meaning of the First review is:-
- ‘The Claimant did building work on the reviewer’s house, almost every aspect of which was of extremely poor quality, and charged additional costs which were grossly excessive. At the time of the review, the Claimant had failed to honour a written promise to pay for another contractor to carry out corrective work such that it was increasingly likely that the reviewer would need to take legal action to recover that sum from the Claimant. The Claimant should not be trusted to take on building projects for other customers.’; and
- ‘The Claimant attempted to build an extension at the reviewer’s home but its workmanship was poor in numerous respects. As a result the reviewer was obliged to spend thousands of pounds on corrective work. The Claimant should not be trusted to take on building projects for other customers.’
- The First review about the quality of the work and the charges, together with the allegations concerning the promise to pay and the recommendation not to trust the Claimant with building projects were defamatory at common law. The Court considered that the review’s headline extended the criticism beyond the particular project, although the wider criticism was presented as an opinion based on the Defendant’s own experience; and
- The Second Review about the poor-workmanship allegation and the remaining elements of the meaning were defamatory at common law. In particular, the asserted expenditure on corrective work was factual and intensified the review’s harmful tendency.
The judgment defines the meanings and separates opinion from factual allegations for the next stages of the libel claim. It does not determine ultimate liability or establish that the reviews were false. The next stage will be for the Defendant to set out any defences on which he/she relies.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate
and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you have any questions concerning the above related subject, please contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us