An aggrieved former client who left a defamatory Google review concerning a solicitor has been ordered to compensate with £9,500 in damages. The review, authored by Adrian Stojek in April 2025, contained false and libellous statements about Kevin Conroy, the principal solicitor of the Birmingham-based family practice KJ Conroy Solicitors.
Stojek had been unhappy with the service provided by the firm and failed to pay his bills, resulting in the firm obtaining judgment against him for £16,000 and securing a charging order against his house. The review alleged that Conroy was a fraudster and described him as “absolutely pathetic”.
Defamatory allegations
The court found that the post referred to Conroy and that the allegations were clearly and obviously defamatory at common law. Conroy had written to Stojek asking for the review to be removed and for a letter acknowledging it was false and apologising for it, but Stojek refused.
In court, Conroy stated that the allegation he was a fraudster impugned his good name and that it would only require one potential client to read the post and take their business elsewhere. The post remained up for 10 months and received two likes.
Read Also: England and Wales Launch Specialist Rape Courts Nationwide
Assessment of damages
Deputy Master Marzec made no findings about Stojek’s motive and said this was not relevant to the assessment of damages. The deputy master reduced Conroy’s claim for £30,000 to £9,500, citing the limited evidence as to the scale and impact of publication.
Conroy had been unable to identify any person who had read the review or the approximate number of readers, or any demonstrable impact on his reputation. The deputy master stated that damages must be no more than is necessary to vindicate the claimant’s reputation and compensate him for reputational or emotional harm.
The public judgment will serve as vindication of Conroy’s reputation, and there is no evidence that he has acted dishonestly, deceptively, or fraudulently. The deputy master refused the claim for an injunction, based on there being no credible threat of further publication of the allegations in the review.
Leave a Reply