Defamation & Reputation Disputes

If you are considering publishing material that may be challenged as defamatory — an article, report, social media post or other content — RWS can review the proposed text and advise on the legal risk before it is published.

Pre-publication review considers whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, whether any defence is available, and whether the material as drafted creates unnecessary legal exposure. Identifying the problem before publication is almost always preferable to dealing with a claim afterwards.

This work is undertaken within RWS's non-reserved consultancy role. Where the matter requires reserved legal work — for example, court proceedings — you will need an appropriately authorised practitioner.

If material has already been published and you believe it is defamatory, RWS can advise on the legal position, the available options and the likely consequences of each.

That may include reviewing the material, assessing whether it is defamatory and whether any defence applies, advising on the strength of a potential claim, and helping prepare correspondence requesting a correction, retraction or apology.

Many defamation matters are resolved without litigation. A well-drafted letter setting out the legal position clearly and proportionately can be effective. RWS can help prepare that correspondence and advise on the response.

Where court proceedings are needed, they must be conducted by a practitioner authorised to conduct litigation, or by the client personally where permitted. RWS can provide only the separately agreed non-reserved assistance, subject to any required approval for the working arrangements.

Defamatory material published online — on social media, review platforms, websites or in online articles — raises particular practical questions about how to respond and what can realistically be achieved.

Options may include a letter to the publisher, a complaint to the platform, a request for de-indexing from search engines, or a formal legal claim. The right approach depends on the nature of the material, who published it, whether the publisher is identifiable, and what outcome you are trying to achieve.

RWS can advise on the options, help assess the realistic prospects of each, and assist with correspondence and preparation within its non-reserved consultancy role.

As a trainee at Lorrells LLP, Ryan worked for the claimant in Wiseman v Sullivan, a libel claim concerning defamatory allegations displayed on a vehicle outside the claimant's home and office. Ryan instructed Jacob Dean of 5RB, now King's Counsel.

The case settled after the trial had begun, with £50,000 in damages, an apology, an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and indemnity costs. It was reported in the press.

This was work undertaken at Lorrells before Ryan qualified in 2013. RWS's current services are limited to non-reserved legal consultancy. The full position is explained on the Regulatory Information page.