A disgruntled former client who posted a defamatory Google review about a solicitor has been ordered to pay £9,500 in damages.
Deputy Master Marzec, sitting in the High Court in Conroy v Stojek, said the defendant made untrue and libellous allegations when he posted the review in April 2025.
The defendant, Adrian Stojek, posting under his own name, had been unhappy with the service provided by Birmingham family firm KJ Conroy Solicitors and failed to pay his bills. The firm obtained judgment against him for £16,000 and subsequently secured a charging order against his house.
Stojek then posted the review which began: ‘Do not use. Very awful man. Reviews your case first to see how much money you have then rips you off. He makes massive mistakes then trys [sic] to take your house and charge you for his own mistake.’
It went on to allege that this ‘man’ was a fraudster and described him as ‘absolutely pathetic’.
The court found it was clear that the post referred to solicitor Kevin Conroy, the principal solicitor of the eponymous firm.
Conroy wrote to Stojek almost immediately asking for the review to be removed and for a letter acknowledging it was false and apologising for it, failing which legal proceedings would follow. The defendant refused, saying his opinion was not incorrect and suggesting he was being bullied into removing it.
In court, Conroy said the allegation he was a fraudster impugned his good name, and pointed out that it would only require one potential client to read that post and take their business elsewhere. The post remained up for 10 months and received two likes.
He stated that he believed the review was posted out of malice and spite, and that he was embarrassed and angry when it went online. The deputy master made no findings about Stojek’s motive and said this was not relevant to the assessment of damages.
In cross-examination, the defendant accepted that none of the allegations he had made were true, but he said that the review was his opinion.
Deputy Master Marzec said the allegations were clearly and obviously defamatory at common law, and it was inherently likely that some people would have looked the firm up on Google and read the review. The fact that Stojek gave his real name and indicated he was a former client lent the review credibility and authority.
Conroy had claimed for £30,000 but the deputy master said this should be reduced to reflect the limited evidence as to the scale and impact of publication. She added that the solicitor had been unable to identify any person who had read the review, or even the approximate number of readers, or any demonstrable impact on his reputation.
She added: ‘Damages must be no more than is necessary to vindicate the claimant’s reputation and compensate him for reputational, or, where claimed, emotional, harm.
‘In this case, this public judgment will serve as vindication of the claimant’s reputation. There is no evidence at all that the claimant has acted dishonestly, deceptively or fraudulently or has tried to “rip off” anyone.’
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.
