Conroy v Stojek: solicitor awarded £9,500 over fraudster Google review

The High Court has awarded a Birmingham solicitor £9,500 in damages after a former client posted a Google review accusing him of being a fraudster who overcharged clients, in a case that examines how courts assess libel damages where a claimant can produce little direct evidence of reputational harm.

The case, Kevin Joseph Conroy v Adrian Andrzej Stojek [2026] EWHC 2429 (KB), was heard by Deputy Master Marzec in the Media and Communications List on 16 July 2026, with judgement handed down on 22 September 2026. The claimant, principal solicitor at his eponymous Birmingham firm, had previously obtained judgement against the defendant, a former client, for unpaid invoices and secured a charging order over his property. In April 2025 the defendant posted a review under his own name describing the claimant as an awful man who reviews your case to see how much money you have then rips you off, alleged he tried to take your house over his own mistake, and called him a fraudster.

Despite correspondence demanding removal and an apology, the review remained online for around ten months. The claimant issued proceedings in July 2025 seeking £30,000 in damages, and after the defendant failed to respond, obtained default judgement with damages to be assessed. An application by the defendant to set aside that judgement was refused at a case management conference, the court finding no credible defence given the absence of any particulars of truth, though the defendant later offered an undertaking to remove the review, which he did in February 2026.

At the damages hearing, the claimant accepted in cross-examination that he could not identify a single client lost as a result of the review, had no analytics showing readership, and could not point to any threat of republication. The defendant, appearing in person, accepted that none of the allegations were true, though he maintained the word fraudster reflected his opinion rather than a factual accusation. The deputy master found both witnesses honest, and noted that the defendant's apparent misunderstanding lay in the operation of libel law rather than in the meaning of what he had written.

Applying the principles in Barron v Vines and the approach to assessing damages following default judgement set out in Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown and Charakida v Jackson, the deputy master held that reputational harm could properly be inferred even without direct evidence of specific lost business. Relevant factors included the seriousness of an allegation of professional dishonesty made against a practising solicitor, the fact that the defendant published under his real name and identified himself as a genuine former client, the ten-month duration of the posting on a widely used platform, the two likes the review received, and its prominence among only five reviews for the firm.

The deputy master rejected the claimant's submission that the seriousness of the allegations alone justified £30,000, holding that the absence of evidence on the scale and impact of publication required the starting point of a low five figure sum to be moderated downward. No aggravating factors were taken into account, as no case on the defendant's motive had been pleaded. An injunction was refused given the absence of any credible threat of republication, with the deputy master noting that the published judgement itself would serve to vindicate the claimant's reputation.

Damages were assessed at £9,500.