High Court finds several emails alleging fraudulent legal fees were defamatory statements of fact
The High Court has ruled that a series of emails sent by a former client accusing a law firm of fraudulent billing were defamatory, following a preliminary hearing in a defamation and malicious falsehood claim.
The case was brought by CJ Jones Solicitors LLP, trading as CJJ Law, against John Sapsford. The matter was heard in the Media and Communications List of the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, before Mr Justice Griffiths.
The proceedings concern six emails sent by the defendant between 4 and 13 April 2023 to a range of recipients, including the Legal Ombudsman, partners at the claimant firm, friends, acquaintances and family members. In those emails, the defendant repeatedly described invoices issued by the claimant firm as “fraudulent”, “bogus” and dishonest.
At a preliminary issues hearing ordered by Master Dagnall, the court was asked to determine the meaning of the statements complained of, whether they were defamatory at common law, and whether they amounted to statements of fact or expressions of opinion.
The dispute arose after the claimant issued an invoice for £34,512.50, relating to work said to include the consideration of more than 1,200 emails over several years. The defendant denied liability for the fees and alleged that the firm had no entitlement to charge him personally.
In a detailed judgment handed down on 30 January 2026, the court analysed each of the six emails individually. The judge found that several of the statements, particularly those sent to the Legal Ombudsman and widely circulated among third parties, conveyed the factual allegation that the claimant firm had knowingly and dishonestly charged fees to which it was not entitled.
Those allegations were held to be statements of fact rather than opinion and were found to be defamatory at common law, as they accused the firm of deliberate dishonesty and fraud.
Other statements, made within more contextualised email exchanges, were found to represent expressions of opinion within an ongoing dispute. While those statements were still defamatory in meaning, the court distinguished them from bald factual assertions of fraud.
One email referring to mediation discussions was found not to be defamatory, with the court concluding it merely identified the existence of a dispute rather than alleging dishonesty.
The ruling does not determine liability or damages but establishes the legal meaning and character of the statements complained of. The case will now proceed to the next stage, where issues such as defences and serious harm may be considered.