Solicitors from Hell owner's defamation bid was 'abuse of court process'
Mr Justice Tugendhat has dismissed a £1m defamation claim launched against Law Society chief executive Des Hudson by Solicitors from Hell owner Rick Kordowksi, branding the bid “an abuse of the court process”.
Des Hudson
Tugendhat J struck out the application without hearing oral submissions from Hudson’s counsel, Matrix Chambers’ Hugh Tomlinson QC, at the High Court last week.
The judge said Kordowski’s complaint of spoken slander against Hudson could not be allowed because he had not made a complaint against Professor Flood of the University of Westminster, who had repeated the alleged slander on his blog.
Tugendhat J concluded: “Whether or not there is a good reason for refraining from suing in libel on the words posted by Professor Flood, that is not relevant to my decision that the action for slander on the words spoken to Professor Flood [by Hudson] is an abuse of the process of the court.”
Kordowski launched his claim against Hudson in September (2 September 2011), alleging that Hudson was guilty of slander because he had labelled Kordowski a “criminal” when speaking to Flood at BBC studios.
It came as the Law Society threatened to bring injunctive action against Kordowski to force him to have his site, which provides a public forum for legal complaints, removed from the internet.
Hudson moved to have Kordowski’s claim stuck out, while Kordowski instructed Cloisters barrister Jonathan Crystal to request a summary judgment on the grounds that the defence had no real prospect of success.
Hudson told the court he had no recollection of calling Kordowski a “criminal” while Professor Flood said he had.
Giving his judgment today the judge stated: “It is impossible for me to say on the documents before me that the defence has no real prospect of success on the issue of whether the words spoken by Mr Hudson were as alleged by Professor Flood or not.”
He added that Kordowksi had not sought to prevent the alleged slander from being repeated. The judge said: “Those who have suffered injury to their reputations and distress by reason of defamatory words published to the world at large do not commonly choose to repeat those allegations and republish them to the world at large.
“It is an unusual feature of this case that Mr Kordowski is not concerned to prevent republication, but has himself participated in republication of the words he complains of. That suggests that he does not share the objective that defamation claimants usually have, namely to prevent republication of the words complained of.”
It is understood that following the trial the Law Society served Kordowski with a claim on behalf of the entire profession in England and Wales.
As Kordowski is bankrupt the body is not looking for financial relief but does want the court to have the site taken down. Tomlinson is also representing the Law Society in that action.
Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2011 1:24 pm
Good call. Kordowski might have started out his crusade with good intentions, but it's ended up as a spiteful website with no attempts made to verify whether the claims are truthful.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
keep going! | 21-Oct-2011 2:01 pm
Rick may have gone amiss sometimes, but he has done something that the regulators have failed to do - prove to the public that there is a forum that really listens to them when they need to express their problems with lawyers.
The best outcome from this (and the Law Society doesn't come out of this looking too good either) - is that the website remains in some shape or form, but perhaps with the following:
- strict rules on removing potentially libellous comments
- guidelines that focus commentators on laying out the facts of the matter, rather than opinion.
And that the site seeks to engage the regulators - acting as a feeder forum of complaints.
One might say this is a bit like the battle between Napster and the music industry (although clearly not about ownership). Eventually compromise was found between the public and those with power.
Rick, like all pioneers, may be slightly off the mark, but the general direction is right and any judge needs to consider that.
The public have a right to complain and share their feelings about about the legal services they pay for - to prevent this would be an awful indication of where British justice was headed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21-Oct-2011 3:56 pm
The fact that the lawyer named could have the entry against him/her removed, for a fee, probably gives the game away as to Kordowski's real motive, in setting up the site.
If the reason for setting up this "service" was to expose shoddy legal service, this option would surely not have been available.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bruce Wilkins | 25-Oct-2011 3:57 pm
Rick Kordowski still helps bent lawyers by altering posts on his site and playing little games with his Solicitors from Heaven site. I'd say more but it appears I'm on a blacklist of those who criticise Kordowski. Ironic, isn't it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27-Oct-2011 11:29 am
in the immortal words of Rice-Davies, M "Well he would wouldn't he?"
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bruce Wilkins | 7-Nov-2011 3:43 pm
So whatever happened to Rick and the big case? Does anybody know the details. His comment on SfH is a bit sparse. Surprised it has not been mentioned in the press.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Nov-2011 11:33 am
Rather interesting to read this .....just as the Legal Ombudsman announces that it intends to publish the names of firms where repeated complaints are noted. All I can say is Rick - you should have IP protected your website idea.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr Raymond Ashley | 15-Nov-2011 8:24 pm
Most of the above have not been on the receiving end of the the Complaints system in this Police State, and Ricks doing a very good job Naming and Shaming these bent Solicitors, in the interests of the British Public, and in my opinion it's the fat cat Lawyers who should be before the Courts but not in this Country and that's a FACT
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment