4 ms·
Giving it a skim it seems the ruling is primarily saying that if you're going to leave a negative review, you need to substantiate why. In this case he called
by BunsanSpace 6y ago
Giving it a skim it seems the ruling is primarily saying that if you're going to leave a negative review, you need to substantiate why.
In this case he called them a scam solicitor but never explained why, which he did in trial "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."
From the sounds of it, if he mentioned that in the review he would be in the clear.
- valuearb 6y agoHe didn’t explain in trial, he never showed up.
- londons_explore 6y agoWhile he didn't attend in person, I think he did submit a written defence. Presumably he thought there was no need to show up or hire a lawyer because the case was a clear win for him.
- valuearb 6y agoThe article is extremely unclear. It can clearly read the way you thought it did, or it can be read as a default judgement vs. a defendant who didn’t respond at all. I think the key point, and one in your favor, is the judges comments. Why would he even elaborate on the reason for his ruling if it’s a default judgment?
- henryaj 6y agoHe did explain it in his review: https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5cf8eb11b055990650f42368 https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5cf8eb11b055990650f42368
- jboog 6y agoSo he committed libel twice to accuse the law firm of fraud it never committed? Not the brightest bulb this guy.
- danpalmer 6y agoYeah, I hope that it's specifically the "scam" bit, accusing them of fraud and breaking the law, that is the crucial bit. That said, I hope that "scam" is common enough vernacular that any actual defence would have managed to convince them that it's a customer airing a grievance and not actually accusing them of a crime.