The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant wrote them
UK Deputy Master Alexandra Marzec has tossed out a defamation claim filed by solicitor Jaqueline Samuels against Christopher Henry over Google reviews, reported the Law Society Gazette.
Marzec concluded that Samuels failed to prove that Henry had written three scathing reviews against Samuels’ firm, Samuels & Co; neither could Samuels prove that the Google Business reviews had seriously impacted the Leeds-based firm’s business negatively.
Henry had initially complained to the legal ombudsman and to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding the service he obtained from Samuels; the SRA cautioned Samuels to ensure that correspondence stayed professional.
Latest News
Two weeks after the ombudsman shot down Henry’s complaint, a negative review written by “Chris H” was posted on Samuels’ business profile that described Samuels & Co as “awful.” The review also called out Samuels and encouraged people to avoid the firm.
The second review was first authored by “John H” before the name was edited to “A Google User” – John is Henry’s middle name. The third review by “P R” called Samuels “rude, abrasive, unhelpful and bitter”; according to Samuels, “P R” stood for the initials of one of Henry’s associates.
Samuels admitted to the court that she possessed no direct evidence pointing to Henry as the author of the Google reviews and was depending on circumstantial matters like the names linked to the reviews and the timing of the first review. She claimed that Henry had a motive for damaging her and presented an email from a potential client who withdrew from obtaining Samuels’ services as a result of the reviews.
Henry argued that he didn’t possess the Gmail address needed to post a Google Business review and denied posting the reviews while under oath.
Ultimately, Marzec dismissed Samuels’ claim because “even on the assumed premise that the defendant is the author of these posts, I do not agree that the posts were or could be evidence probative of an allegation of malice,” Marzec said in a statement published by the Gazette.
“They were negative reviews in trenchant terms but nothing in them indicates that the reviewer(s) is not honestly expressing his or her views,” Marzec concluded.