In September 2011,
Rick Kordowski, promoter of the website www.solicitorsfromhell.com,
issued a claim against Desmond Hudson, Chief Executive of the
c in respect of an alleged comment he made to Professor John
Flood that “Rick Kordowski was a criminal”. The comment
was subsequently published by Professor Flood on his blog.
Mr Kordowski, perhaps on a
point of principle rather than in reliance on the strength
of his case, issued a claim for slander, seeking relief by
way of:
a declaration that Mr Hudson’s
statement to Professor Flood was false and defamatory;
an order that Mr Hudson publish a suitable correction and
apology; damages not exceeding £10,000;
and an order restraining Mr Hudson from publishing or further
publishing the matter.
In his defence, Mr Hudson submitted a plea of justification,
stating that he did not say Mr Kordowski was a criminal, but
that his methods of collecting payment in exchange for the
removal of defamatory comments from his website amounted to
criminal behaviour.
On Friday 21 October 2011, Mr Justice Tugendhat considered
Mr Kordowski’s application for summary judgement. He
concluded that the application was an abuse of process and
that it was not capable of summary judgment because it was
impossible to say whether the defence had no real prospect
of success. In doing so, the learned judge identified the
following facts to be relevant:
(a) The major conflict of
evidence between the parties as to the exact words spoken
by Mr Hudson.
(b) The words complained
of were spoken to a single person, and although the reference
to Mr Kordowski’s being a “criminal” in itself
is extremely serious, the forum on which the comments were
posted also included comments made by Professor Flood that
were supportive of Mr Kordowski. Therefore, there was no
evidence that Mr Hudson’s alleged comments had caused
any real or substantial harm to Mr Kordowski’s reputation.
(c) Mr Kordowski chose to
post the alleged comments he claimed to be defamatory on
his own website, which was in conflict with any suggestion
that the threat of republication and promotion of the comments
to the world would tarnish his reputation.
Defamation – a point
of principle?
Claims for slander are by
their very nature difficult to prove as there is usually always
a conflict of evidence, and the matter will boil down to who
a Court believes is a more credible witness. As such, it is
always worth exploring whether a factual scenario has merit
in pursuing a claim for libel (or even malicious falsehood
if the comments are not strictly defamatory but they do cause
damage). Indeed, in his judgment, Tugendhat J identified that
different factors would have been considered had Mr Kordowski
chosen to bring a claim for libel in relation to the words
published by Professor Flood, specifically as the publication
of such a serious allegation would have been addressed to
the public at large.
We welcome views and
opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should
you require specific advice in relation to personal
circumstances, please use the form on the contact
page.
.
.
