Awdry Bailey and Douglas and Another v Rick Kordowski
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 01 April 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 785 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ1OD03690 |
| Date | 01 April 2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2011] EWHC 785 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Before : The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ1OD03690
Miss Victoria Jolliffe (instructed by Awdry Bailey& Douglas) for the Claimants
Mr Kordowski appeared in person
Hearing dates: 28 March 2011
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr Justice Tugendhat :
The Defendant in this libel action describes himself as the "publisher" of the website "Solicitors From Hell" ("the Website"). The first Claimant ("the Firm") is a firm of solicitors long established in the Wiltshire region. The second Claimant ("Mr Bressington") is employed as a solicitor by the Firm and is the Head of the Family Law Department. He has an established family practice in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Avon and Somerset and is and has been a member of his profession's Family Law Panel since 2003.
On 28 March 2011 I stated that I would grant the application of the Claimants for the Defence to be struck out, and for final judgment to be entered for the Claimants. I issued a final injunction that Mr Kordowski be restrained from publishing the words complained of, or any similar words defamatory of the Claimants, that the Claimants be permitted to apply for damages to be assessed and that the costs of the Claimants be paid by Mr Kordowski. I said I would give my reasons later, and these are they.
On and since 2 September 2010 Mr Kordowski has published on the Website words headed with the names of the Firm and Mr Bressington, which then continue as follows:
"This despicable individual…represented my wife for the last 4 1/2 years during our divorce… ".
It is unnecessary to set out the full text. The meanings complained of are pleaded as follows:
"The Claimants are guilty of serious professional misconduct, dishonesty and incompetence in that whilst representing a client in divorce proceedings [Mr Bressington] in his capacity as an employee of [the firm]:
) Repeatedly and knowingly lied in court;
) Employed disgraceful tactics in order to deliberately harm the client's children by unwarrantedly damaging their relationship with their father;
) Contrary to [the firm]'s claims on its website, conducted the litigation in a manner which was not in the interests of the client, but was solely motivated by financial gain for the [the firm]".
The next day, 3 September 2010, the Claimants sent a letter in accordance with the Pre Action Protocol for Defamation. They requested the immediate removal of the article from the Website, an undertaking not to repeat the words complained of and a written apology. At that stage they noted that they did not seek costs or any proposals as to damages. Their concern was with the immediate removal of the words complained of.
On 6 September Mr Kordowski replied by e-mail as follows:
"I have had another look at the listing posted at [the Website] about you and your firm. It is a legitimate complaint/opinion and it will stay published as a warning to others. You can of course; issue legal proceedings via the High Court to have a judge order the listing to be taken down. But only if the allegations transpires to be false!
You should also take note that I have been in contact with your former client (Tim) and he has confirmed that the published allegations are indeed true with supporting evidence.
However, your former client has overlooked the fact that he could have his complaint published "permanently" on my site".
"You still have the option to mitigate your perceived losses/damages by subscribing to my "Administration and Monitoring" scheme.
Subscribers not only enjoy the instant deletion of complaints from my website but also the deletion of links from search engines such as Google. As if it never happened.
Subscribers in addition will have any further complaints either repeat or new, intercepted and deleted immediately. For a one off fee, for life.
Some subscribers have even asked for subsequent customer complaints to be copied to their senior partners as a way of learning prior to permanent deletion.
Details can be found here… Oh, and just so you know. Other firms Tracing Agents have found that I have no money and no assets (thanks to my former solicitors)."
It was not correct that the author of the words complained of was a former client: as stated in the words complained of, he was the divorced husband of a former client.
On 29 September 2010 the Claimants issued their claim form and served it with the Particulars of Claim. In accordance with CPR Part15 a defence was due within 14 days.
On 27 October Mr Kordowski served a document headed "Defence of the Defendant" consisting of three pages accompanied by a one page statement from Mr Tim Line. All but one page of that document consisted of the full text of the Defamation Act 1996 s.1, which Mr Kordowski had copied and pasted into his defence. Apart from that, the purported defence consisted of a general denial and a plea that Mr Kordowski was not the author of the words complained of. That was the only purported defence.
On 5 November the Claimants wrote to Mr Kordowski explaining the defects in his purported Defence. They referred to CPR Part 16 and 53 Practice Direction each of which provide what a defence is required to contain.
On 2 December Mr Kordowski sent a document headed "Second Witness Statement". In it he said that, having discussed the matter with Mr Line, he was "inclined to conclude that his experiences with the Claimant as explained in the [the words complained of] and published by myself are true". He also claimed that they were "fair (honest) comment". He said that "on this occasion I dispensed with my verification procedure as I naturally assumed that the Claimant's response would be covered by this client confidentiality point as the author of the posting was not a client of the Claimant". The client of the Claimants was of course Mr Line's wife not himself. Further he claimed that the words complained of were published having regard to "duty and interest of others". He said that Mr Line had made a monetary contribution to my website, putting his posting in the "Premium Players List".
On 14 December the Claimants issued the application notice which is now before me. It included an application for an order that the Defence be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), and that judgment be entered for the Claimants, because the defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim, and that the relief as set out in the attached draft order be granted, together with costs. After some redrafting the draft order, as now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
QRS (on behalf of himself and in a representative capacity for all the individuals identified in Confidential Annex 1 to the Amended Claim Form in these proceedings) v Daniel Charles Beach and Another
...and [19] respectively); and to findings that he was abusing the process in Kordowski v Hudson [2011] EWHC 2667 (QB), [44] and Awdry Bailey and Douglas v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 785 (QB), [25]. Discussion 62 The evidence leaves me in no doubt that the publications relied on via XYZ.net and the......
-
The Law Society (in a Representative Capacity and Others v Rick Kordowski
...made claiming he does not seek to verify the accuracy of the content of the submissions (see Awdry Bailey Douglas v Rick Kordowski [2011] EWHC 785 (QB)). 15 Mr Tomlinson states that the Claimants and in particular, the First Claimant, have no objection to proper criticism of the legal prof......
-
QRS (on behalf of himself and in a representative capacity for all the individuals identified in Confidential Annex 1 to the Amended Claim Form in these proceedings) v (1) Daniel Charles Beach (First Defendant/First Respondent) (2) James Bloomfield (Second Respondent)
...is a real prospect of success (post, para 56).The following cases are referred to in the judgment:Awdry Bailey & Douglas v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 785 (QB)Collier v Williams [2006] EWCA Civ 20; [2006] 1 WLR 1945; [2007] 1 All ER 991, CAFarrall v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 2140 (QB)Forcelux Ltd v B......