In our previous blog, we discussed a defamation case called BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot A/S [2024]. Following the hearing in relation to preliminary issues in that claim, the Defendant applied for summary judgment (which was discussed in another previous blog) against the Claimant and the Court has finally decided to put a stop to this case.
The law
Rule 24.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that:
“The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on an issue if-
(a) it considers that the party has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, defendant or issue; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.”
BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot A/S [2024] EWHC 1449 (KB)
Facts
The Claimant is a law firm specialised in debt recovery work and the Defendant is a website operator, which published reviews about the Claimant on its website. The Claimant alleged serious harm to its reputation and financial loss, specifically, that it had lost a large-sum debt collection contract with a telecoms company due to those reviews.
The Defendant applied for summary judgment against the Claimant and argued that the Claimant had no real prospect of establishing that the publication of the reviews had caused serious harm and financial loss as required by section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Held
The Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Defendant as it considered that the Claimant did not have a real prospect of success of proving its case on the balance of probabilities due to its main issue with causation, i.e. each of the 20 reviews has caused, or is likely to cause, serious financial loss to the Claimant. There was no evidence showing that any of the relevant reviews had resulted in the telecoms company deciding not to proceed with the Claimant’s bid and, therefore, there was a lack of clarity about the cause of any serious financial loss (if any).
Comment
The success of the Defendant’s application shows that the Court examines the link between each-and-every alleged defamatory statement and the alleged serious harm that the Claimant has suffered/is likely to suffer. Circumstantial evidence, such as the following, will be taken into account when assessing the said link:
- The Publication figures, i.e. how many people have viewed the defamatory statements;
- The level of serious harm that the claimant has already suffered from the time of publication of the defamatory statements and the time of hearing; and
- The potential attribution of other defamatory statements (that are not in question in the case) towards the serious harm that the claimant has suffered/is likely to suffer.
If the Claimant fails to provide concrete evidence to support claims of reputational harm and financial loss in a defamation claim, his case is likely to be struck out.
How can Nelsons 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 need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to 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