Judge blocks website's 'Solicitors From Hell' comments about lawyer

A second High Court judge has issued an interim injunction banning the owner of the website Solicitors From Hell from publishing or republishing defamatory material about a lawyer with a London firm.

It is the second time in less than a month that a court has issued an interim order against website owner Rick Kordowski.

Mr Justice Edwards-Stewart granted a similar order against Mr Kordowski on September 23.

The latest order was granted by Mr Justice Tugendhat, who today handed down a written judgment explaining his reasons for issuing the order on Friday.

Interim injunctions banning publication are rare in defamation cases because of the rule in the 1891 case of Bonnard v Perryman, which states that an order should not be granted if a defendant says he or she will justify an allegation or put forward another defence unless it is clear that the defence will fail.

The latest order was granted to solicitor Juliet Farrall, of McCormacks Law.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said the words of which she complained, when printed out, covered three pages, and included allegations that she was "downright crooked".

But the author of the material was not identified, and little detail was given about the date, place or other circumstances concerning Ms Farrall's alleged actions.

Ms Farrall denied all the allegations, which she said were completely untrue, the judge said.

She also claimed that Mr Kordowski made no effort to verify the truth of what appeared on the website or ask her for her comments before the material was published.

The only way of getting the material removed from the website was to pay a £299 fee - which she considered to be akin to extortion, the judge said.

The material disappeared from the website after the notice of the application for the injunction was served, the judge said, adding: "No explanation for this has been given by the defendants.

"The claimant does not know whether the removal is temporary or permanent. No assurance has been given to her that the same or similar words will not be published again."

He went on: "It is well known that it is rare for the court to grant injunctions on interim applications in defamation actions. However, the court has jurisdiction to do so and will do so in accordance with the Human Rights Act, section 12, in an appropriate case.

"On the information before me I am satisfied that there is a prima facie case of libel, that there remains a threat by the defendant to publish or further publish the words complained of, and that if publication or further publication occurs the claimant will suffer injury which cannot fully be compensated in damages.

"I am in no doubt that the words complained of are defamatory. Nothing has been stated by the defendant to the effect that he has a defence of justification or any other defence. The claimant is likely to establish that the publication complained of should not be allowed."

During last week's hearing he was told about the order issued by Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart, he said, adding that because of that and other evidence that appeared to be a pattern in Mr Kordowski's behaviour that he decided to hand his judgment down in writing.

He added: "The defendant had an opportunity to appear and make representations to the court today. He did not do so.

"Nevertheless, nothing in this judgment is to be taken as a finding of fact against him."

The judge said he had made an order prohibiting publication or further publication of the words complained of, or any other similar words defamatory of Ms Farrall.

He had also ordered Mr Kordowski to make a payment on account of costs to Ms Farrall.