The defendant published a web-site ‘Solicitors From Hell’. Judgment had been entered against the defendant, as to a complaint falsely attributed to a client of the claimant. The defendant made a further application.
Held: ‘I asked Mr Kordowski why he had the duty and the public the interest that he alleged, given that there was a statutory procedure for complaints against solicitors. He said his site was for members of the public who were not succesful with that procedure. It was to get solicitors to make amends. It is obvious that the reciprocal duty and interest for common law qualified privilege does not exist in this case, and the conditions for a Reynolds defence of qualified privilege are equally lacking. There is no public interest in the publication of the words complained of, which express the personal grievances of Mr Line, and Mr Kordowski says himself that he did not check before he published. If he had done, what Mr Line has produced by way of evidence would not have given Mr Kordowski any better grounds for a Reynolds defence.’ and ‘Mr Kordowski is abusing the process of the court, seeking to cause the Claimants to incur costs which he says they have no prospect of recovering from himself. Whether his motive is to punish them for not meeting his demands for money, or for some other reason, is immaterial. ‘
Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 785 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Moss and Coleman Solicitors v Kordowski Nom 1-Feb-2007
The claimant solicitors sought transfer to them of a domain name registered by the defendant using their name and criticising them. . .
Cited – Farrall v Kordowski QBD 5-Oct-2010
The claimant, a solicitor, sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant defaming her on his website ‘solicitorsfromhell.co.uk’. The court gave its reasons for granting it. The website offered solicitors to have material about them withdrawn . .
Cited by:
See Also – QRS v Beach and Another QBD 26-Sep-2014
The court gave its reasons for granting an interim injunction to prevent the defendants publshing materials on their web-sites which were said to harrass the claimants.
Held: Whilst it was important to protect the identity of the claimants, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.431657