Negative reviews by former employee found to be defamatory at common law: TWH Legal Services Limited T/A B&L Solicitors & Anor v Niazi & Anor
In TWH Legal Services Limited T/A B&L Solicitors & Anor v Niazi & Anor [2026] EWHC 746 (KB) (27 March 2026), the High Court found that negative reviews by a probate executive about her former employer, a solicitor, were defamatory at common law.
Background
Between April and September 2024 probate executive, Shanaz Niazi, posted three one star reviews on websites https://reviewasolicitor.com and https://reviews.birdeye.com about solicitor, Elaine Liddle (the “Reviews”). Ms Niazi had previously worked for TWH Legal Services Limited, a law firm owned by Ms Liddle, between December 2022 and January 2023. The Reviews included statements that Ms Liddle was “extremely dishonest”, a “fraudster”, “dodgy” and “incompetent”. Ms Niazi claimed that Ms Liddle’s ex-husband was convicted for drug driving and also that she was surprised that she had not been struck off as a solicitor.
On 28 January 2025, Ms Liddle and TWH (the “Claimants”) issued a libel claim against Ms Niazi. The claim forms part of wider proceedings against Ms Niazi and a second defendant, Elizabeth Radcliffe, for breach of contract, breach of confidence and unlawful means conspiracy. The recent judgment focused solely on a trial of preliminary issues in the libel claim, including the meaning of the Reviews and whether they are defamatory.
Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC was asked to determine four preliminary issues:
- The natural and ordinary meaning of the Reviews;
- Whether the meanings are defamatory at common law;
- Whether the statements are statements of fact and/or an expression of opinion; and
- If a statement is an opinion, whether the Reviews indicate the basis of that opinion.
The Reviews
Natural and ordinary meaning
The Claimants were said to have adopted an unorthodox approach by pleading one identical meaning for all the Reviews. Ms Niazi admitted the Claimants’ pleaded meaning.
The court said that the Claimants’ approach failed to comply with CPR PD 53B rule 4.2 which requires claimants to identify the specific words complained of in each statement, and submit a separate pleaded meaning for each review. Submitting a composite meaning for all undermined the court’s ability to determine the correct meanings attributable to the relevant words. It also held that, whilst the content of the Reviews substantially overlapped, there is a legal principle that every publication gives rise to its own cause of action.
As such, the judge considered the meaning of each review separately. He noted that even though Ms Niazi had not objected to the Claimants’ approach and had admitted their pleaded meaning, a judge determining meaning at a preliminary issues trial is not bound to accept the parties’ positions on meaning, but is instead able to “find their own meaning providing that it is not more injurious to the claimant’s reputation than the claimant’s pleaded meaning: Koutsogiannis principle”.
Defamatory at common law
The court applied the common law test for defamation as set out in Corbyn v Millett [2021]: (i) “the consensus requirement” whereby the meaning “tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally” and (ii) the “threshold of seriousness” test whereby the wording would tend to have a “substantially adverse effect” on the way people would treat the claimant.
He found that the Reviews were defamatory at common law. Whilst the judge found that the ordinary reader would “form the impression that [Niazi] is someone with an axe to grind”, he held that the ordinary reasonable reader would still take the allegations seriously, especially as Ms Niazi was a former employee and “well-placed to provide an insider’s view”. He also highlighted that the allegations were particularly serious for an individual “whose business depends on securing the trust of the general public.”
Statements of fact or opinion
The Claimants submitted that the Reviews were all statements of fact, whereas Ms Niazi submitted that they were exclusively statements of opinion, and that the Reviews indicated the facts they were based upon. If correct, Ms Niazi’s would be able to defend the claim on the basis of an honest opinion. If found to be statements of fact, her potentially available defences would be limited to those such as truth or public interest.
The judge found that the Reviews contained a mixture of statements of fact and opinion. He classified claims that Ms Liddle was a liar, incompetent and unprofessional as statements of fact, whilst allegations that she was a “fraudster” were statements of opinion because the ordinary reasonable reader would understand it as an opinion based on the factual allegations in the review.
Basis of opinion
The Claimants submitted that any statement found to be a statement of opinion was a bare comment. A “bare comment” is an opinion unsupported by any facts and is treated the same as a statement of fact in law. The court rejected this submission; finding that the Reviews indicated the basis of the opinions expressed.
Dismissal of the company’s claim
The judge held that the Reviews were not defamatory of TWH, Ms Liddle’s law firm. The Reviews focused on the solicitor personally and, although it was referred to, the Reviews were not taken to mean that readers should avoid the firm itself. As such, the libel issues will be litigated between Ms Niazi and Ms Liddle going forward.
Comment
The case provides helpful guidance on libel cases relating to negative online reviews.
The judgment emphasises the importance of properly identifying the precise words complained of in defamation claims. The Claimants’ approach of adopting a composite meaning for all the Reviews was criticised for lacking sufficient focus and clarity.
The judgment also highlights that even if statements might be said to come from “a disgruntled former employee”, readers may still take such statements seriously given that reviewer’s position as a former employee.
For further information, please email the authors or your usual CMS contact.
