.jpg){kind=link}
The court found serious harm despite limited evidence of the review’s readership.
The High Court has awarded a solicitor £9,500 in damages for Google review libel after a former client published allegations that he was a “fraudster” who overcharged clients. Deputy Master Marzec held that the allegations were serious enough to cause serious harm to the solicitor’s professional reputation, although there was limited evidence about how widely the review had been read.
The case concerned Kevin Joseph Conroy, principal solicitor at K. J. Conroy Solicitors, and former client Adrian Andrzej Stojek. The firm had previously obtained judgment against Stojek for £16,026.31 in unpaid legal bills and subsequently obtained a charging order over his house.
In April 2025, Stojek posted a review of the firm on Google. Among other allegations, the review accused Conroy of “ripping” clients off, making serious mistakes and being a “fraudster”. Conroy asked Stojek to remove the review and apologise, but the review remained online. Proceedings were issued in July 2025, with the claim seeking £30,000 in damages for reputational harm.
Stojek did not acknowledge service or file a defence, and default judgment was entered in October 2025, with damages left for the court to assess. He later unsuccessfully applied to set aside the judgment. The review was eventually removed on 25 February 2026 following an undertaking given by Stojek.
At the damages hearing, Conroy could not identify a client who had decided not to instruct the firm because of the review. He also had no records showing financial loss, a reduction in enquiries or the number of people who had viewed the review. However, the judge accepted that his evidence of being distressed and embarrassed by the publication was truthful.
The court nevertheless found that serious harm could be inferred from the circumstances. The allegations suggested dishonest overcharging and criminally deceptive or dishonest conduct, which the judge described as particularly serious allegations against a solicitor. The review was also posted under Stojek’s real name, identified him as a former client and appeared on Google for around 10 months.
The review had also received two “likes” and was one of only five Google reviews of the firm. The court considered these factors sufficient to support an inference that the review had been read and endorsed by at least two people and that serious harm had occurred.
However, the court rejected the suggestion that the seriousness of the allegations automatically justified the £30,000 claimed. The judge stressed that there was no evidence of identifiable or measurable reputational consequences or the overall number of readers. The court therefore moderated the damages to reflect the limited evidence concerning the scale and impact of publication.
The judgment also confirmed that the damages assessment was compensatory and was not based on the defendant’s culpability or motive, in the absence of a pleaded claim for aggravated damages. The court found no credible threat of republication and declined to grant an injunction.
Deputy Master Marzec concluded that £9,500 was an appropriate and proportionate award. The judgment itself would also serve to vindicate Conroy’s reputation, with the court stating that there was no evidence that he had acted dishonestly, deceptively or fraudulently.