Man to pay £25,000 ($34,000) damages over negative TrustPilot review

Re:Man to pay £25,000 ($34,000) damages over negative TrustP... by BunsanSpace on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @08:49AM (#26077375)

Giving it a skim it seems the ruling is primarily saying that if you're going to leave a negative review, you need to substantiate why.

In this case he called them a scam solicitor but never explained why, which he did in trial "I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case. But what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me."

From the sounds of it, if he mentioned that in the review he would be in the clear.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man to pay £25,000 ($34,000) damages over negative TrustP... by henryaj on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @09:18AM (#26077707)

He did explain it in his review: https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5cf8eb11b055990650f42368

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man to pay £25,000 ($34,000) damages over negative TrustP... by jboog on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @09:25AM (#26077790)

So he committed libel twice to accuse the law firm of fraud it never committed?

Not the brightest bulb this guy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man to pay £25,000 ($34,000) damages over negative TrustP... by danpalmer on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @09:19AM (#26077709)

Yeah, I hope that it's specifically the "scam" bit, accusing them of fraud and breaking the law, that is the crucial bit.

That said, I hope that "scam" is common enough vernacular that any actual defence would have managed to convince them that it's a customer airing a grievance and not actually accusing them of a crime.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man to pay £25,000 ($34,000) damages over negative TrustP... by valuearb on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @08:53AM (#26077409)

He didn’t explain in trial, he never showed up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man to pay £25,000 ($34,000) damages over negative TrustP... by londons_explore on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @09:55AM (#26078160)

While he didn't attend in person, I think he did submit a written defence. Presumably he thought there was no need to show up or hire a lawyer because the case was a clear win for him.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man to pay £25,000 ($34,000) damages over negative TrustP... by valuearb on Tuesday February 09, 2021 @03:30PM (#26082066)

The article is extremely unclear. It can clearly read the way you thought it did, or it can be read as a default judgement vs. a defendant who didn’t respond at all.

I think the key point, and one in your favor, is the judges comments. Why would he even elaborate on the reason for his ruling if it’s a default judgment?

[ Parent | on HN ]