Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Preliminary libel issues over online reviews of a solicitor. The court found the reviews defamatory of the second claimant, but not of the company claimant.
TWH Legal Services Ltd (t/a B&l Solicitors) & Anor v Niazi & Anor [2026] EWHC 746 (KB) (27 March 2026)
The High Court held that three online reviews about a solicitor were defamatory of the second claimant, but not of the firm, and that parts were fact while others were opinion.
Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 551 (KB) (11 March 2026)
The High Court struck out parts of a defamation and malicious falsehood claim, rejected an apology plea, and granted summary judgment on malicious falsehood.
CF&L Ltd & Ors v Fraser & Ors [2025] EWHC 3350 (KB) (19 December 2025)
The High Court refused interim injunctions sought over online reviews, alleged harassment, and private information, holding the defendant’s defences were not bound to fail.
The High Court refused an interim injunction over alleged defamatory reviews, harassment, and misuse of private information arising from a cancelled water cooler contract dispute.
Ranaie v Warland [2025] EWHC 3320 (KB) (17 December 2025)
The High Court held that a neighbour’s email to the claimant’s employer conveyed defamatory factual allegations of trespass, criminal damage and harassment, plus an opinion with an indicated basis.
The High Court held that an email to the claimant’s employer conveyed defamatory factual allegations of trespass, criminal damage, and harassment, plus opinion.
The High Court found that a music review’s reference to Andy Ngo as an “alt-right agitator” conveyed a defamatory factual meaning, not protected opinion.
The High Court granted summary disposal in a defamation claim over Facebook posts accusing the claimant of stealing business ideas and intellectual property.
The court found that the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements was that there were reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Vince had called Hamas freedom fighters and was an apologist for Hamas. The statements that Mr Vince said 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' were statements of fact; the imputation that he called Hamas freedom fighters was opinion, with the basis indicated. The defence of truth failed as, taken in the round, the Times Radio interview did not provide reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Vince called Hamas freedom fighters. However, an honest person could…
Source excerpt
Explore more
