TWH Legal Services Limited T/A B&L Solicitors & Anor v Shanaz Niazi & Anor

In a libel claim involving online reviews, the court must determine the natural and ordinary meaning of each publication separately. A review may contain both allegations of fact and expressions of opinion. Whether words such as dishonest, fraudster or incompetent are fact or opinion depends on how they would strike the ordinary reasonable reader in context. An evaluative statement is not bare comment where the publication indicates, in general or specific terms, the factual basis of the opinion. Allegations impugning a professional person’s honesty, integrity or competence may satisfy the common-law requirements of defamatory tendency and seriousness. A claimant cannot rely at trial on an unpleaded meaning or unspecified words. Reference to a company does not automatically attach allegations about its principal to the company.

The claim arose from three online reviews published by the First Defendant about the Second Claimant, a solicitor and owner of the First Claimant, TWH Legal Services Limited trading as B&L Solicitors. The proceedings included other causes of action, but the trial concerned preliminary libel issues ordered under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 53B, paragraph 6: the natural and ordinary meanings of the reviews, whether those meanings were defamatory at common law, whether statements were fact or opinion, and, for any opinion, whether its basis was indicated.

The court rejected the parties’ attempt to rely on one pleaded meaning for all three publications and considered each review separately.

1. Each publication required separate analysis. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 53B, rule 4.2, the claimant had to identify the precise words complained of and plead the imputation conveyed by each publication. The court was not bound by the meanings advanced by the parties, subject to not finding a meaning more injurious than the pleaded meaning.
2. Review 1. The review conveyed that the Second Claimant dishonestly acquired Elizabeth Radcliffe’s will banks by falsely promising payment and then refusing to pay; that she was a liar; that she was extremely dishonest and unscrupulous; and that she was incompetent, unprofessional and failed to comply with duties to clients. It was defamatory at common law. The allegations comprised mixed fact and opinion. The opinion that she was extremely dishonest and unscrupulous was supported by the identified allegations of acquiring the will banks and lying.
3. Review 2. The review conveyed dishonest acquisition of the will banks, tantamount to theft; that the Second Claimant was a fraudster and liar; and that she was incompetent and unprofessional. These meanings were defamatory. The word fraudster was understood as a deduction from the factual allegation that she had stolen the will banks. The reference to her former husband’s drug-driving conviction was not defamatory of her.
4. Review 3. The review conveyed substantially similar allegations, together with that the Second Claimant was unfit to practise as a solicitor. It was defamatory. The serious evaluative criticisms were opinions whose bases were indicated by the detailed allegations concerning the will banks, lying, incompetence and lack of professionalism. The abusive phrase nasty piece of work was not itself defamatory.
5. The Company. None of the reviews conveyed the pleaded meaning that prospective clients should avoid the Company and existing clients should cease using it. The focus was on the Second Claimant. The claim of the First Claimant therefore failed at common law, and the libel issues would proceed solely between the Second Claimant and the First Defendant.

First-instance decision. The judgment records no prior appellate decision.